Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Orthodox week...


Lola said...

Those little touches of cobalt blue...

Thom Curnutte said...

It's interesting to see the San Damiano on the wall. I know it's an icon, but I wonder if this is an American parish?

Mimi said...

Thom - I'm Orthodox, and I had to Google what the San Damiano is. It is hard to tell, but I'm not sure that the icon is the same.

In Orthodox Churches, there is an Icon of Christ on the Cross that his hung on the left hand side of the church, with a candle stand underneath (which you can see in this photo) - and it is where candles in memory of those who have died are lit.

It probably looks something like this:


Thom Curnutte said...

Thanks, Mimi- you're probably right. The reason I thought "San Damiano" is the distinctive shape, and the absence of a "cross bar."

Anonymous said...


I think the icons in Eastern Catholic Churches are wonderful along with many of the liturgical objects.
But I must say that I went to my first Divine Liturgy in North Carolina for the 20th sunday after Pentecost, since going to a Ukranian Catholic Liturgy in New York many years ago, and it was way to noisy and busy.
There was not a moment of contemplative silence.
The priest chanted everything alternating between English and Spanish with a tiny bit of Slavonic and Greek in there.

The Canon was chanted out loud, unfortunately, and nothing was prayed in silence.
I had an extremely hard time praying because of the lack of silence.
I must say though that Father Roher gave a wonderful sermon on the evils of freemasonry and protestantism.
The Liturgy was offered at the Byzantine Catholic Church, Sts Cyril and Methodius in Cary NC.

The Traditional Latin Mass is much more conducive to "actuosa participatio" and interior prayer, than this particular liturgy.

Kat, is this ultrabusiness and verbosity normal for the Eastern Catholic Liturgies?
I actually would prefer a reverently offered Novus Ordo to what I experienced and ironically enough I went to St Cyril and Methodius because that Sunday I was unable to make the long drive to the FSSPX Mass in NC.
God bless.

rightwingprof said...

I suggest you not base your opinion on only one data point. As for silent prayers, they are not appropriate in an Eastern liturgy, since the Eastern concept of liturgy is that which we pray together.

rightwingprof said...

Oh yes. That's obviously a Slavic church of some sort, and not a Greek or Antiochian church. Note that the candle stands are up in front of the iconostasis. In Greek and Antiochian churches, they are in the back.

Anonymous said...

"I suggest you not base your opinion on only one data point.'

Right wing prof:

Not my opinion, just my observation.

"Eastern concept of liturgy is that which we pray together"

In the Latin Rite we pray the silent Canon together.
I was told by several gentlemen that the Eastern Catholic priest used to pray the Canon silently.
What changed?

rightwingprof said...

"I was told by several gentlemen that the Eastern Catholic priest used to pray the Canon silently.
What changed?"

Silent prayers are a Westernization, though not one peculiar to Eastern Catholics. We believe that the bread and wine are transformed through the prayers of all of us there, not the prayers or actions of the priest. Today, many Orthodox churches have dropped the silent prayers practice, because it is alien to the Eastern concept of liturgy.

I have major surgery to endure today, if you would all please remember me in your prayers.

Anonymous said...


You are in my prayers as you recover from major surgery.

As to your statement:
"We believe that the bread and wine are transformed through the prayers of all of us there, not the prayers or actions of the priest."
This is heresy.
The Church has always and everywhere taught from the time of Christ till now that it is only the priest or the bishop, on his own, who can consecrate bread and wine and perform transubstantiation.
May I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The minister of consecration
In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigenses and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament". Rejecting the hierarchical distinction between the priesthood and the laity, Luther later on declared, in accord with his idea of a "universal priesthood" (cf. 1 Peter 2:5), that every layman was qualified, as the appointed representative of the faithful, to consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent opposed this teaching of Luther, and not only confirmed anew the existence of a "special priesthood" (Sess. XXIII, can. i), but authoritatively declared that "Christ ordained the Apostles true priests and commanded them as well as other priests to offer His Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Sess. XXII, can. ii). By this decision it was also declared that the power of consecrating and that of offering the Holy Sacrifice are identical. Both ideas are mutually reciprocal. To the category of "priests" (sacerdos, iereus) belong, according to the teaching of the Church, only bishops and priests; deacons, subdeacons, and those in minor orders are excluded from this dignity.
Scripturally considered, the necessity of a special priesthood with the power of validly consecrating is derived from the fact that Christ did not address the words, "Do this", to the whole mass of the laity, but exclusively to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood; hence the latter alone can validly consecrate. It is evident that tradition has understood the mandate of Christ in this sense and in no other. We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. When in the fourth century the abuse crept in of priests receiving Holy Communion at the hands of deacons, the First Council of Nicæa (325) issued a strict prohibition to the effect, that "they who offer the Holy Sacrifice shall not receive the Body of the Lord from the hands of those who have no such power of offering", because such a practice is contrary to "rule and custom". The sect of the Luciferians was founded by an apostate deacon named Hilary, and possessed neither bishops nor priests; wherefore St. Jerome concluded (Dial. adv. Lucifer., n. 21), that for want of celebrants they no longer retained the Eucharist. It is clear that the Church has always denied the laity the power to consecrate. When the Arians accused St. Athanasius (d. 373) of sacrilege, because supposedly at his bidding the consecrated Chalice had been destroyed during the Mass which was being celebrated by a certain Ischares, they had to withdraw their charges as wholly untenable when it was proved that Ischares had been invalidly ordained by a pseudo-bishop named Colluthos and, therefore, could neither validly consecrate nor offer the Holy Sacrifice."