The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
arekeon27, Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg
5,845 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (Wenura Ravindu, 1 invisible), 58 guests, and 33 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,167
Posts414,956
Members5,845
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 24
Quote
You see, asianpilgrim, apparently not all Catholics are bound to accept the same Apostolic Faith.


ALEXIS:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I think you mistake the Latin expression and living out of the Apostolic Faith with the whole of the Apostolic Faith. Vatican II called Catholics to understand that the Latin expression and living out of that Faith is not the exclusive or exhaustive one. Especially with the interventions of the Melkite Patriarch at the Council--and others--the Church has moved to understand that the Holy Spirit has given valid, living, holy expressions of the same Deposit to others. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the insights the Holy Spirit has given them and their lived out holiness in response to them. The Latin Church has no corner on the Holy Spirit or on Truth. That does not make her less than she is; it enriches her by providing additional ways of following the Holy Spirit Who leads all of us into all truth, as the Lord told us the Holy Spirit would do.

The Eastern approach to the Divine Liturgy, for example, gives us much to think about. The attitude toward the Holy Gifts--the Lord Himself veiled in the Mysteries--is something we really need to recover.

So your remark is at best short-sighted and at worst condescending.

In Christ,

Bob

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
"The Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite is certainly NOT a medieval or renaissance innovation. As embodied today in the 1962 Missal, it is in essence the Roman Rite as it stood at the end of the Patristic Age, with merely secondary ceremonial or rubrical modifications for the past millennium. "

Good one, Asian. Don't repeat that in front of any competent liturgist, though. biggrin

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Bob,

There's enough condescension in this thread to go around, don't you think? (Cf. the last poster's comment).

By the way, Bob, there's nothing in your post I disagree with. I'm not sure how you see by what I wrote that I somehow would not agree to what you said.

Alexis

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
OK, I will be a bit more specific. The Tridentine Rite is a form of the Romano-Frankish rite, a hybrid combination of the Old Roman Rite and the Gallic Rite that emerged during the 9th-10th centuries.

The Old Roman Rite died out in the 9th century during the decadence of the Papacy; it ceased to be celebrated even within Rome itself, because nobody was left who knew how to celebrate it.

However, in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Old Roman Rite had been carried over the Alps, where it gained favor in the Carolingian court (if it was Roman, Charlemagne had to have it). However, the Franks found it rather dry as compared to the more ornate and prolix Gallic rite (which, developing in and around Lyons, had a strong Eastern element to it). So they began importing elements of the Gallic Rite into the Old Roman Rite, and by the 9th century the hybrid Romano-Frankish Rite had evolved. It was carried back over the Alps by the German Popes of the 10th and 11th centuries, and rapidly emerged as the dominant rite in the Latin Church, thanks to the centralizing tendencies of the reform Papacy.

Most of the variations of the Latin rite that exist or existed are derived from that hybrid rite, including the Tridentine Rite. It is therefore incorrect to say that the 1962 Missal in any way "is in essence the Roman Rite as it stood at the end of the Patristic Age". Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) is widely considered to be the last of the Latin Fathers, and when he died, the Old Roman Rite was the liturgy of the Church of Rome, not the hybrid Romano-Frankish rite. For his part, Isidore probably celebrated something akin to the Mozerabic Rite. At the same time, the Gallic Rite was the predominant liturgy in Gaul, while the Celtic Rite was still being used in parts of Britain.

A simple comparison of 7th century sacramentaries with the 1962 Missal will reveal very different forms of the Mass, though both have, at their core, the Roman Canon. But it takes more than a Eucharistic Prayer to make a liturgy, and the Old Roman Rite and the Tridentine Rite are two different things entirely. And the latter is a Renaissance refinement of a typical Medieval Latin liturgy. Those are just the facts, and you can check them for yourself.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Actually, I would take the view that the Roman Liturgy sometimes called "Tridentine" is a somewhat gallicanized version of the Old Roman Liturgy - and that the gallican additions have generally been well received.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
What exactly was the old Roamn rite of the patristic era like anyway? Are there any surviving text or descriptions of how it was celebrated? Knowing the Roman love for quick, and simple ceremony, I am sure that it was never as exotic as the Byzantine Greek liturgy.

Also, why was there so much change and development of the Western liturgy of the Church while the Eastern DL was more stable? Did this have to do with the fact that, for the first 1,000 years, the West was basically missionary territory?


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
The Old Roman Rite began its development some time in the late fourth-early fifth centuries, after Rome began celebrating the liturgy in Latin rather than Greek. It reached its mature form some time in the seventh century, which happened to be the time that the Roman aristocracy finally began entering the upper ranks of the Church in significant numbers. As the aristocracy were educated in an antique, Ciceronian Latin and the people were speaking a low Latin slouching into Italian, it was marked by terse collects by the celebrant and epigrammatic responses by the people, as these were easy to remember. The liturgy was dialogic in the same manner as the Divine Liturgy--indeed, all liturgies took the form of a dialogue between celebrant and people. Everything was sung, using, at first "Roman Chant" (which had strong Byzantine influences) and then "Gregorian chant" (which had nothing to do with Pope Gregory). It was the intent of both the Tridentine and Vatican II liturgical reforms to return the Roman Rite to the form of the Old Roman Rite; neither succeeded, but for different reasons.

The Byzantine Divine Liturgy, all propaganda to the contrary not withstanding, is itself a hybrid rite that contains elements of Antiochian, Capppodocian, Alexandrian and Jerusalem liturgy (see Taft and Schultz for details on this). The Byzantine rite evolved over a period of centuries, and did not reach its present form until some time in the 13th-14th century during the Studite revival. It does seem clear that both of the most common Byzantine anaphorae--Basil and Chrysostom--are younger than the Roman Canon, but in their mature forms both rites stabilized in the Middle Ages.

What did not happen in the Byzantine rite, though, was the privatization and complete clericalization of the liturgy. There is no "private Mass' in the Byzantine rite; neither is there a "low Mass". Even after the 17th century importation of composed polyphonic music into Russia, congregational singing and participation remained in the hinterlands. Even in Russia, congregational participation never atrophied to the point that the people were passive spectators who "heard Mass" while the priest "said Mass".

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Stuart,

I would think many know the general history of the Roman Rite, as it has been discussed here on the Forum quite a few times in the last few years, if I remember correctly. But thank you for going over it for us.

The generalities expressed do not necessarily negate asianpilgrim's comments. I think it is necessary to discuss this with greater specificity, i.e. what changed, when it changed, how much did it change. And of course we could play patristics ourselves and have a debate as to what "essence" means! wink

Quote
Stuart said: (which, developing in and around Lyons, had a strong Eastern element to it)

I've heard this often, and find it interesting. If the Rite developed in/around Lyons, then isn't it necessarily Western, and not Eastern? Or rather, wouldn't its elements be Western just as much as Eastern, but simply elements more common in the East? Of course there are theories that the Gallican Rite in its origin/infancy was transplanted from the East, which would then make it sensible to say that it had "Eastern elements." Is there much evidence for this theory?

Lastly, if the Old Roman Rite died out ninth century, and the hybrid rite came back into Rome in the tenth and eleventh century...what was being celebrated in the meantime?

Alexis



Last edited by Logos - Alexis; 07/07/09 10:00 PM.
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
What did the "old Roman Rite" look like?
Depedening upon the specific timeframe....

what can be said with certainty is that the clerics USUALLY (but not always) faced ad orientam, that laymen's communion might be by separate reception of Body and Blood, or of Body alone, or by the blood alone if infirm; that the blood might be sipped, might be used for intinction, or might be delivered by spoon or straw. The priests' communion would always be by separate reception of both Body and Blood. The deacons would usually receive both, but there are credible descriptions of some locales where the deacons received only the body. Typically, few laymen woud receive, and depending upon the time frame, the vestments would vary. Color was introduced somewhere around the 8th C. In Gaul and Occitania, and even into spain, blue would be used for marian feasts.

If there was a deaconess present, she might stand in the sanctuary for the mass. Depends on exactly when, and how. She might be permitted to take the cup to receive the blood.

Regional variation was wide and widespread. The Irish canon had a prothesis, as does the dominican, and a different order in the liturgy of the word, than the Roman AND the Galican. Vestment colors varied by region, tho' great feasts were white with red, or later, white with gold.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
"what can be said with certainty is that the clerics USUALLY (but not always) faced ad orientam, "

Always ad orientum, even in Old St. Peters, which was, due to the topography of the site, "occidented". When the celebrant faced the people at St. Peters, he was facing east. There is some evidence that the entire congregation would turn around at various parts of the Liturgy (can't call it the Mass, yet), so that all would be facing east.

"that laymen's communion might be by separate reception of Body and Blood, or of Body alone, or by the blood alone if infirm; that the blood might be sipped, might be used for intinction, or might be delivered by spoon or straw. "

Always under both species, except for infants (this was the case until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215). Communion was administered with each species separately, the Body placed in the hands of the faithful, the Blood sipped from the chalice held by a second priest or a deacon.

"The priests' communion would always be by separate reception of both Body and Blood."

In this, it was no different from the way Communion was received by the laity. Note, however, that the clergy did not "take" communion, as is now common practice, but rather, received it from the hand of another minister. This was true even of bishops, and even of the Bishop of Rome himself. Nobody should ever "take" Communion, because it is a gift we receive, and therefore it should be given to us from the hands of another. This is a lost custom that would be very good to revive.

"Typically, few laymen woud receive, and depending upon the time frame, the vestments would vary."

Communion became infrequent from the sixth century onward, as continual injunctions against abstaining from Communion are ubiquitous from that time until the eleventh century, when the abuse became a time-honored custom.

"Regional variation was wide and widespread. The Irish canon had a prothesis, as does the dominican, and a different order in the liturgy of the word, than the Roman AND the Galican. Vestment colors varied by region, tho' great feasts were white with red, or later, white with gold."

These are not the Old Roman Rite, which refers specifically to the liturgy of the Church of Rome (meaning in Rome and the suburbicanian dioceses). The Gallic, the Celtic, the Mozerabic, the Ambrosian and various other liturgies used locally were gradually suppressed by the Roman rite and its successor, the Romano-Frankish Rite, because it had the support and patronage of the Carolingians and their successors as Emperors of the Romans.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
"Lastly, if the Old Roman Rite died out ninth century, and the hybrid rite came back into Rome in the tenth and eleventh century...what was being celebrated in the meantime?"

Really good question, for which nobody has much of a good answer. Rome at that time was practically anarchic, the Papacy was a pawn in the hands of various Roman aristocratic families and it looks as if religious life almost collapsed entirely.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel
Just when you thought there would be a reunion, then this happens...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8122510.stm


They are Rome's Old Calendarists. These are hard core "more Catholic than the Pope" schismatics. They will never ever accept Vatican II. Trust me. I used to be one. (mea culpa mea culpa...) There is little one can do except pray for them.

Beyond that I suggest ignoring them.

In ICXC
John

Last edited by Ad Orientem; 07/08/09 05:47 AM. Reason: typo
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Those who wish to study the Roman Liturgy would do well to begin with the Ordo Romanus Primus.

Of course the Constantinopolitan Liturgy is a hybrid. That is why it has such broad appeal in a remarkable variety of cultures.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
So the way things are done in the Novus Ordo mass now are very similar to the practices of the first millenium in Rome? Interesting. I suppose that the current lack of ceremony in the NO mass is a throwback to the rather plain Roman rite of the time as well?

Also, why did Rome do away with such practices as giving the chalice to the laity and infant communion (as well as immersion baptism)? Would not it have been better in the long run if the RCC had kept these traditions so as not to create a bigger gap between East and West, as well as add more fuel to the fires of the Reformation?


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
"So the way things are done in the Novus Ordo mass now are very similar to the practices of the first millenium in Rome? "

Yes and no. The Vatican II reforms restored certain elements such as full congregational participation, but the implementation of the reforms brought about many innovations alien to the Latin Tradition, including celebration versus populum, the use of multiple Eucharistic prayers (the Roman rite traditionally had just one such prayer, the Canon, with multiple prefaces) unregulated by the liturgical calendar. Some of those new Eucharistic prayers are decidedly "Eastern" and include an explicit epiclesis of the type found in the Chrysostom, even though historically the Latin Church did not have one in the Canon, because (a) the Canon is older than the pneumatological controversies of the East; and (b) the entire Eucharistic prayer is itself an unfolding epiclesis.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5