"RITES" by AVATAR on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (522 characters and 18
notes).

"RITES" by AVATAR, Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:09 Eastern about CATHOLIC RITES
(424 characters & 18 notes)
         "Ummmm....What's  a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC?"    "I don't want to  seem
ignorant,   but  what's  the difference  between  Byzantine  Catholics  and
Catholics?"   A frequent question in my line of work.  Here's where you can
find  out  - if you hang in here long enough to get the  periodic  postings
that  will  attempt  to explain the REAL nature  of  the  Catholic  Church,
instead of what you've grown up believing.

Note 1 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (4123
characters).

1 (of 18) AVATAR Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:11 Eastern (4056 characters)

Dear Friends:

         Welcome to "Rites."  And by that title I mean to include ALL rites
within  the  Catholic Church.   There have been,  in my  experience,   many
misapprehensions  as  to the nature of the Church,  misapprehensions  which
have led,  oftentimes,  to people leaving the Church because their image of
it was not only blurred, it was false.

         I  cannot  count the number of people who have told me  (since  my
ordination  more  than  twenty years ago)  that they left  because  of  the
'monolithic'  structure of the Church.  Let me set  the record  clear,  for
those of you who may be a bit confused.  I am NOT an Orthodox priest.  I am
a CATHOLIC priest...in the very same exact sense as His Holiness,  the Pope
is,   or  as  Father  Pat  and Father  Brian  are.   (Grin...I  *must*   be
Catholic...I'm too 'unOrthodox').

         There are essentially two basic divisions in Christianity. Eastern
Christianity  and Western  Christianity.  Western Christianity consists  of
Latin  Catholics  (some  of whom are  Roman  Catholics)   and  Protestants.
Eastern Christianity consists of Catholics  of  various Eastern Rites,  and
Orthodox.  Moslems are the largest and oldest surviving 'heretics'   of the
early Church,  with the  exception  of the Monophysite Christians of Coptic
Egypt.  Before too long,  I  will post another answer with a  chart showing
some of the  various  subdivisions of Christianity...Catholic AND Orthodox.
Once you understand  how  highly variegated the Church is,  not only in its
liturgical customs, but in its canonical legal structure, its spirituality,
its emotional and cultural life,  perhaps that image will be destroyed.   I
hope  so.

         The  term  'Catholic'   means,  in essence,  that the  Church  was
established  by  Christ for the welfare of all men,of all nations,  of  all
times, of all eras, of all cultures, of all the world past, present and yet
to  come.   It ought not to surprise anyone that I am by far more  familiar
with what is normally called the 'Byzantine' rite (there *are* subdivisions
called 'recensions'.  The recension to  which  I belong is sometimes called
'Ruthenian'.)   But,  depending  on  the  premise by which you introduce  a
grouping,   there  are  anywhere  between  7 and 21  distinct rites in  the
Catholic Church,  all of which are as fully Catholic as any other,  none of
which (ostensibly,   at least) receives any preferential treatment.   THERE
ARE *NO* SUPERIOR RITES WITHIN THE CHURCH!  We are all children of the same
loving Father,  saved by the  very  same Blood of the Very Same Christ,  by
virtue of the very same Faith  in  His Name,  and by the action of the very
same Holy Spirit.

         In future postings,  I  will try to post a short chart showing the
major divisions  and subdivisions of rites within the Catholic Church,  and
in  subsequent  postings,  I  will try to trace some of the history of  the
development of rites.   Don't hesitate to ask questions...or,  if you catch
me in an egregious historical error, to correct me.   I make no pretense to
being  an  authority on the subject,  apart from the fact  that,  like most
people  who  grew up with something,  I  can reasonably be expected  to  be
somewhat  more expert than those who've never heard of it.  Once I have the
history  partially  set forth,  I  can begin to deal with the  business  of
Liturgy,    Prayer,   Spirituality,   Ascetical   Practices,    Meditation,
Contemplation,   etc.    Culture  will have a part to  play  here,   but  a
surprisingly  small  one.

         Questions  will always be welcome.    But  please understand if  I
cannot get to them immediately (I *am* a  working pastor), and, if I forget
to address a question,  please don't get angry,  just drop a short  note to
remind me.   There may be some questions I choose to  answer privately (for
the  time being)  since one can easily find the flow of things  interrupted
that way by constantly dealing with changing topics and  never  integrating
any of them. Be patient with me.

Note 2 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (5666
characters).

2 (of 18) AVATAR Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:12 Eastern (5600 characters)

                               Prologomenon:

         You may wish to dump the following document to your printer. It is
an attempt to construct a reasonably rational chart of the relationships of
the various rites of the Catholic Church to each other,  in terms of  their
origins, and their similar customs and disciplines.

         These  are  the rites currently in practice in the Catholic Church
today.    You will notice that no reference is made to 'Orthodox'   groups.
The reason for  that  is  simple.   Despite the fairly widespread idea that
when  the  Orthodox  left the Church in the eleventh century,  ALL  eastern
Christians  left  at  the same time,  it simply isn't so.   At no  time  in
history have ALL of ANY group left the Church.  There have always been SOME
(GREEK) Greek Catholics,  always some Russians, always some Syrians, always
some Copts, etc. As late as the Councils of Florence and Ferrara, the Slavs
were  well-represented  in  the  person of the leading  theologian  of  the
Councils, St. Isidore, the Archbishop of Kiev.

         My own  family is a remnant of such.   In Russia,  they are called
'Old Catholics'  because they remained constantly faithful to the  Catholic
Church  and constantly in union with Rome.   A  very SMALL remnant,  it  is
true.  But, a  remnant,  nonetheless.   Those who were related to the royal
family were even banished from court and exiled domestically to Siberia for
that loyalty. But some ALWAYS remained.

         Most of  the  groups named have counterparts among  the  Orthodox.
Most, indeed,   have  counterparts among the Orthodox which are larger than
the Catholic segment.  All except the Maronites,  with whom you're familiar
from the evening news in Lebanon.

         In future postings,  I shall strive to give a rather more complete
picture of developments,  but suffice it to say for the moment that, at the
very beginning of the Christian era there was no question of 'rites'.   You
were  a Christian,  or you were not.  Then,  following the  early  heresies
(Gnostic,  Nestorian,  Arian,  Monophysite,  etc.),  you were an "Orthodox"
Christian or a "heretic" (yes,  'Orthodox'  was what we now call 'Catholic'
today) Christian, and only following the schism of 1056  did the categories
fall  into  the present-day mold.   And only the Greek Church (most of  it)
left  union  with Rome at that time.   The other churches were  neither  so
developed nor so subordinate at that time.

         The infamous Fourth  Crusade (ca.  1214)  and the crusade declared
(and  sanctioned  by  Rome)  by the Teutonic Knights were the  final  wedge
between East and West, particularly offending the Slavs, who understood the
concept of 'crusade',  but considered that it ought not be directed against
members of one's own Church.  (At that time, the Slavs were still attending
the  Ecumenical Councils...as I indicated...Florence,  Ferrara,  et  alia.)
Highly  offended (and,  I  think,  rather justly so)  they,  too,  withdrew
saying, in effect, "if you don't want us,  we don't want to be there."  And
so  the  split  was  finalized  in  mid-15th century.   We  live  with  its
consequences today.

         It  is  my contention that,  had the schism between East and  West
occurred,  there would not only have been no Protestant Reformation,  there
would  have been no need for one,  nor an opportunity for it.   The  period
immediately  previous  to Luther's own time,  (the civil religious wars  in
central Europe against the Hussites and other similar groups) set the stage
for Luther's own time and for Luther's own protest.   In fact,  much of the
debate Luther wished to initiate in  his 95  theses were already matters of
common observance in the Eastern Church and remain so today (e.g. communion
under both species, lay participation in the liturgy, etc.)

         The scandal of a divided Body of Christ remains.  And,  I suspect,
will never disappear until the Catholic Church puts its own house in order.
There is simply no reason to expect either Orthodox or Protestant to return
to union with the Church when they can point to the treatment meted out  to
minority  rites in the Catholic Church and ask:  "You mean you want  me  to
return to be treated like *that*?"

         Those   biases  and  bigotries  are  essentially  the  result   of
ignorance. Ignorance can always be overcome,  if by nothing else,  by study
and  prayerful  reflection.  Part of the purpose of this conference  is  to
remove some of that legacy of bigotry and ignorance with which we have  all
been  burdened by our own particular histories,  hoping that in the removal
of it, we  can  once again hold out our arms in a wide embrace to those who
long  since  should  have been lovingly welcomed in our Father's  house  as
brothers, as children of the same loving Father.

         You may find it amusing,  not to mention ironic,  that Roman Canon
Law requires each and every bishop to have a See (Sedes,  seat).  And,   in
Rome (and set aside in Roman Law) there is a Cathedral Church set aside for
each Patriarch. It is commonly assumed (again, falsely) that St. Peter's is
the  Cathedral  See of the Holy Father.   It is not.    The  Holy  Father's
Cathedral  See  is  St.   John Lateran.  St.  Peter's is reserved  for  the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople,  should (as it will, the Scriptures
have  so  promised)   Byzantium return to union with Rome.  The  Ecumenical
Patriarchs of Antioch,  Jerusalem and Alexandria each have their own....St.
Paul's Without the Walls, St. Mary Major, and one other I've forgotten.

Note 3 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (5214
characters).

3 (of 18) AVATAR Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:13 Eastern (5149 characters)

         THE FIVE 'ECUMENICAL' PATRIARCHATES: SOURCES OF ORIGIN TO
                       THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY...


                             (NORTH) BYZANTIUM
                                     :
                                     :
         (WEST) ROME       <-     JERUSALEM     ->  (EAST) ANTIOCH
                                     :
                                     :
                             (SOUTH) ALEXANDRIA
                                  <EGYPT>

         With Jerusalem as the point of origin, Christianity spread East to
Antioch,  South to Alexandria, West to Rome, and North to Byzantium,  which
would become Constantinople within two more centuries. These centers became
the 'launchpads' for the evangelization of neighboring regions reaching far
beyond  the  confines of the Roman Empire.  Thus,  the  origins  of  Slavic
Christianity   (including  Poland,   Czechoslovakia,   Rumania,   Bulgaria,
Jugoslavia,  parts of Bavaria,  Slavonia, Carinthia,  Hungary,  and Eastern
Germany (including Prussia and  East  Prussia,  of which more later) was in
Constantinople.   Antioch spread its message toward what is now Iraq,  Iran
and as far as India and China. Jerusalem evangelized the 'Phoenician world'
and Arabia while Rome evangelized Western Europe and Iberia. Alexandria had
Africa as its province, including (until the arrival of the Vandals and the
subsequent  conquest  by the armies of Islam two centuries or so after  the
death of St. Augustine of Hippo, North Africa, and the East Coast of Africa
(the  Horn).   Christianity seems not to have made a great deal of progress
through the torrid zones of Africa until the settlement of Southern  Africa
by  European  colonists quite late in history,   following  the  Portuguese
explorations of the sixteenth century and following.

        ===========================================================

        A CHART OF THE ORIGINS OF THE VARIOUS RITES OF THE CATHOLIC
                 CHURCH, IN TERMS OF GENEALOGICAL DESCENT.

                                 JERUSALEM
                                     :
                                     :
        ===========================================================
                 :                                       :
            WESTERN RITES                          EASTERN RITES
            :                 :                    :          :
        ROME             ANTIOCH            ALEXANDRIA    BYZANTIUM
            :         =============================================
            :         :      :     :               :              :
        Roman ========:      :     :        Copts (egypt)  Bulgarian
      Vernacular          Syrian Chald- Arme-       :             :
            :                :   aean   nian     Ethiopian        :
            :             (east)   :                :  (Ge'ez)  Georgian
          Roman              :     :                :             :
         Slavonic         (west) Iraqi            Greek         Greek
            :                :     :                              :
        Ambrosian        Maronite Syro-                         Italo-
            :                :   Malabarese                    Albanian
            :                :                                    :
         Gallican       Malankarese                        Melkite/Syrian
            :                                                     :
        Mozarabic                                            Ruthenians
                                                                  :
                                                              Rumanians
                                                                  :
                                                               Russians
                                                                  :
                                                              Hungarians
                                                          (sub-carpathians)
                                                                  :
                                                              Serbians
                                                                  :
                                                             Ukrainians
                                                                  :
                                                         USA (vernacular)*

*(The  USA vernacular refers to a church the ethnicity of which has  become
very  mixed,  by virtue of intermarriage,  conversion legal changes of rite
and  so  on,  and reflects a quite different makeup than most of the  other
'rites' of Byzantine origin.)

      ----------------------------------------------------------------

         These are the rites currently in use in the Catholic Church in the
1980s.  (The exception, of course, is the reference to the U.S. vernacular,
which  does  not  reflect the existence of a rite,  per se.    I   suspect,
however,   that  it is developing into a distinct rite of  its  own,   with
distinct customs, distinct traditions, distinct pressures, needs and gifts.

Note 4 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (5860
characters).

4 (of 18) AVATAR Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:13 Eastern (5793 characters)

         Ever since  the disastrous events of the year 1054,  the  Catholic
Church  has  appeared  to  the  world  as  something  perilously  like   an
institution of purely Western,  Latin,  European origin and ethos," (Donald
Attwater) whereas,  in fact,  the Catholic Church is *none* of these.   The
two  basic  divisions  of Eastern  Rites and Western Rites,   each  further
subdivided  (cf.   previous postings)  and fifteen or more variations which
have  grown  up  throughout  the course  of history are what  make  up  the
Catholic  Church.  The Eastern Rites have three basic  major  subdivisions,
based largely on origins:  Alexandrian, Antiochene  and Byzantine.  Each of
those will hold under its sway  one  or more  of the following:   Armenian,
Chaldaean, Coptic, Georgian,  Greek, Melkite, Maronite, Bulgarian, Serbian,
Rumanian, Russian,  Ruthenian, Malabar,  Malankara, West Syrian, Ethiopian,
Ukrainian, Hungarian,  East Syrian,  and (possibly)  American.  The Western
Rites (note the plural, please!)   have  under that heading the Latin Rites
(Roman,   Ambrosian,  Gallican)  and Western non-Latin <betcha didn't  know
there  WERE  any of THEM,  didja!?!?>  (Mozarabic and  Italo-Greek).    The
Mozarabic  rite exists almost exclusively  in Spain and uses Arabic as  its
liturgical  language,   and  the  Italo-Greek uses  the  Liturgies  of  the
Byzantine Rite,  but celebrates them in Latin or Italian,  according to the
time-honored custom of the  Eastern Church's tendency to use the vernacular
wherever possible.  The Italo-Greek is  classified as non-Latin,  though it
uses Latin, because its liturgy is essentially Byzantine in nature.

Not  only  does  the Church *permit*  the existence of  these  rites,   she
*INSISTS* that each has a RIGHT to exist, in the family of Catholicism, and
that  ALL of these are her rites.  The Decree on the Eastern Churches  from
Vatican II speaks out loudly:  "All Eastern rite members should know and be
convinced  that they can and should always preserve their lawful liturgical
rites and their established way of life."

         It  is  painful  to see how unaware even religious instructors are
(not to mention the hierarchy itself)   Catholics are of their Eastern Rite
Churches....for  yours they are,  as a brother or a sister is yours.    The
commonplace  attitude is that if you are a Catholic,  then you go to church
the same way I do, you worship the same way I do, you do the things in your
church I do in mine...and if you do not,  you cannot be a Catholic, because
I *KNOW* that *I* am a Catholic, and ALL CATHOLICS ARE ALIKE!

         It rarely occurs to a Western Rite Catholic, priest or not,  (more
specifically,  to a Roman Rite Catholic...the Mozarabics,  Italo-Greeks and
Ambrosians  find  themselves  as sorely frustrated as do  the  rest  of  us
Eastern  Catholics)   that there are,  quite literally,  MILLIONS  of  true
Catholics  of  whom the above description simply IS NOT TRUE!   Roman  Rite
Catholics  (sorry,   folks...the  truth IS the truth...)   tend  to  equate
themselves  AND  NO OTHERS with "The Catholic Church"...and  that  attitude
extends  (probably with a greater damage than at the lay level)  well  into
the ranks of the Catholic Hierarchy,  particularly of the American Catholic
hierarchy.    The  find  it difficult to squeeze into their notion  of  the
Catholic  Church such diverse and disparate groups as  Armenian  Catholics,
Byzantine Catholics,  Melkites,  none of whom have EVER used Latin in their
liturgies.   It is an irony of history that Pope John XXIII of happy memory
won  the  election  to  the Papacy by a  small  margin  over  the  Armenian
Patriarch, Cardinal Gregory Peter Agajanian XV. We just as near as scat had
an Eastern Catholic Pope in the 1960s.

         The  history  of  how  the geographical divisions  occurred  is  a
fascinating  one and  begins with the elevation of the  Emperor  Diocletian
(284-305)  to the Imperial throne.   He reorganized the Empire for purposes
of effective and efficient government,   and you will find to this day that
on  the  Eastern  side  of  the boundaries he drew  the  Church  is  nearly
completely  Eastern  in  character,   and on the Western side of the  line,
Western,  Latin & Roman.  That  line passes through the Adriatic Sea,  down
through the boot of Italy itself, where Southern Italy (Calabria,  etc.) is
on the Eastern side of that line, up through the area of Trieste, and north
to the Baltic.  The Polish Bulge of Latin Catholicism onto the eastern side
of that line  was the result of Charlemagne's conversion at swordpoint,  at
the  urging  of  his Frankish bishops,  of the Saxons  and  the  subsequent
further  intrusions into already Catholic (Eastern)  areas by the  Frankish
bishops, resulting in the many trips of SS.  Cyril and Methodius to Rome to
plead for  the Pope's instructions that Latin bishops cease and desist, and
the eventual death of St.  Methodius  from  the  rigors of  those journeys.
Further  crusades sanctioned by the Holy See in the 14th and 15th centuries
by  the  Teutonic  Knights  against  Eastern  Christians led to  the  final
defection  of  the  Russian  Church and the establishment of Prussia  as  a
military power,   and the Junkers as a military caste.  We have paid sorely
for that ever since.

         I cannot say how many sections this will take...currently it looks
to be thirty or more.   Feel free to add your comments here,  interspersed,
or  start  a sub-conference on a particular question.   Feel free  also  to
direct  questions  directly  to  me.  For those of  you  who  have  already
expressed an interest, there is an ENORMOUS Eastern influence on the Anglo-
Catholic  Church,   which I shall have to address separately.  Stay  tuned,
please.

Note 5 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (9403
characters).

5 (of 18) AVATAR Dec. 11, 1987 at 18:14 Eastern (9337 characters)

         Emperor  Diocletian  (284-305...note particularly that  his  reign
expired  only  seven  years  before  Constantine's Battle  at  the  Milvian
Bridge...and  only twenty  years  before Constantine moved the seat of  the
Empire to  a more central location...Byzantium...which he called 'New Rome'
which   eventually  came  to  be  known  as  'Constantinople',    currently
'Istanbul') broke up the massive administration of the Empire into somewhat
less cumbersome units.  Quite effectively,  I  might add.   His arrangement
worked  quite well.   He effectively divided the Empire into two divisions,
Eastern and Western, and each of those was further divided. (It's ironic, I
think,  that Constantine forced the virtual evacuation of Rome by requiring
the  nobles  of  Rome  to relocate in Byzantium,  to build  themselves  new
palaces and so on,  and  so heavily  taxed  those who remained in Rome that
Rome itself was  virtually denuded of anything but a regional bureaucracy.)
The Emperor, head of the Empire, had (usually by adoption) two sub-emperors
(CAESARS),  one to head the  Eastern  Division and one to head the Western.
And  so on.  The  line which divided the Empire into East and West ran from
the  Baltic  Sea through North  Africa at about the longitude  of  Trieste.
Note that even to  this very  day,   what  lies east of that line is almost
exclusively Eastern Christianity,   and what lies west,  almost exclusively
Latin  (note....not  synonymous  with  'Roman'...check  the  chart   posted
earlier.)   The  'Polish  Bulge'   is  the  result of the conquests of  the
Carolingian Empire and  the Crusade  of the Teutonic Knights....(arrrggghh!
anathema to ANY Eastern Christian.)

         Following  the  death  of Pius XII in 1958,  there was  a  budding
interest  in  the  Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church as a result of  the
candidacy of Gregory  Peter XV Cardinal Agajanian.   Western Rite Catholics
had a  good deal  of trouble,  not only with the pronunciation of his name,
but  with  placing  his  office...Patriarch of the  Armenians...within  the
household of the Church.

         Had anyone taken a quick look at the opening pages of THE OFFICIAL
CATHOLIC  DIRECTORY  (in which you will find me listed,  too)   they  could
readily have assured  themselves that Cardinal Agajanian was,  in fact,   a
legitimate member  of  the papal household and a Catholic in perfectly good
standing, even  though  (as  many news reports pointed out with great care,
not to mention astonishment)  that he did not offer the Liturgy in the same
way or in the same language as had Pope Pius XII.

         A  bit of a closer look would have shown that the Cardinal had  no
fewer than six churches of his own rite in the United States where he could
have offered  the Divine Liturgy properly equipped with the enclosing veils
and  curtains  proper  to his rite,  and he could have knelt readily  on  a
raised   platform  to  distribute  Communion  under  both  species  to  his
congregation  as  they  approached  the  Altar  and stood  to  receive  the
Eucharist from his hands.  Twenty-one of the twenty-six Archdioceses of the
United  States  have  churches of the various Eastern  Rites  within  them.
There are ten  Eastern Rite Dioceses in the United States, of which mine is
but one.

         Most of the Eastern Rite Churches in this country do not belong to
the Roman dioceses in which they are geographically located, since Catholic
priests  stationed in such churches are not subject to the jurisdiction  of
the local Western Rite Catholic Bishop. I, for example, am not subject (nor
are my parishioners) to Bishop Howard Hubbard, of Albany, New York.  We are
under the jurisdiction of Bishop Michael J. Dudick, of Passaic, New Jersey.

         "Isn't the Catholic Church the same everywhere?"   I've heard that
question a thousand times if I've heard it once. People invariably expect a
reply in the affirmative and are really quite shocked to hear the negative.
But  an  affirmative  reply,   though true in one  sense,   is  dangerously
misleading in another.  It tells only HALF the truth.   The Catholic Church
IS,   most assuredly,  one--in her beliefs and in her doctrines.   But  she
manifests a marvelous diversity in her ritual, her ceremonies, her customs,
her language,  her spiritual life, her psychology; in short,  her RITES are
NOT one, but many.  Nor is this diversity the result of simple tolerance on
the  part  of  the  Roman Church,  which PERMITS such  diversity  and  such
divergence out of charity. Listen again to the Second Vatican Council: "The
Catholic  Church  holds  in high esteem the  institutions  of  the  Eastern
Churches,  their liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions, and Christian
Way of Life...."

         But,   doesn't this splintering and fracturing of the Church  into
segments tend to destroy  the unity the Church claims?   Another question I
have  tossed  at  me offhandedly from time to  time...usually  by  priests.
Again,  the Council: "That Church, Holy and Catholic, which is the Mystical
Body of Christ,   is made up of the faithful who are organically united  in
the Holy Spirit through the same faith,  the same sacraments,  and the same
government  and  who,   combining into various groups held  together  by  a
hierarchy, form separate Churches or rites. Between these, there flourishes
such an admirable brotherhood that this variety within the Church in no way
harms  her  unity,   but  rather manifests it.  For it is the mind  of  the
Catholic  Church that each individual Church or rite retain its  traditions
whole  and entire,  while adjusting its way of life to the various needs of
time and place."

         So,  it should be clear that UNITY rather than UNIFORMITY is  what
the Church seeks among her Christian peoples.

                               --------------

                      WHO ARE EASTERN RITE CATHOLICS?

         Perhaps  the  easiest  way  to learn more about the  Eastern  Rite
Catholics is to  attend Mass (we call it the Divine Liturgy)  in one of our
churches.  Plan to  attend an Eastern Rite Liturgy with an acquaintance who
already knows something about us.  You can readily learn from your CATHOLIC
DIRECTORY (or,  I would hope) from any Catholic priest) whether there is an
Eastern Catholic Church near you.   Try your local telephone book,  and the
yellow pages.

         Have no fear about  satisfying your Sunday obligation.   That will
be  fulfilled,  and amply so,  I  might add,  for the Liturgy  you  attend,
depending on the season and which Rite you attend may very well last for an
hour,  or even two hours.  (Naturally,  the length of the sermon as well as
the number of those receiving The  Eucharist will also change the length of
the service.)  According to canon law,  any Catholic may fulfill ANY of his
obligations by being present at ANY Catholic Liturgy (canon 1249 of the old
Codex).   Some parishes and schools (too few, to my estimate)  have adopted
the  practice of inviting an Eastern Rite Catholic priest to celebrate  the
Divine Liturgy according to his own rite,  but in their own church,  parish
hall or school. While this practice is laudable,  still it does not provide
the many benefits that arise out of the experience of attending the liturgy
celebrated  by  a  priest  in  his  own  church,   surrounded  by  his  own
congregation and his own accouterments.

         Furthermore, the practice of inviting the Eastern Catholic priests
in  to  celebrate  a  Liturgy  during the  Church  Unity  Octave  (normally
celebrated  in mid-January)  is even more dangerously misleading,  since it
says to people (without a word) that we are NOT ALREADY in union, and thus,
generally,  are to  be  treated more or less the same as the others invited
into  Catholic Churches at that time:  Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians,
Lutherans and Orthodox. We find ourselves lumped,  even in practice, by our
Roman  brothers,   with those who ARE NOT in full union.   And  the  Church
suffers accordingly.

         I  have  been ordained nearly twenty-five years.    I   have  been
stationed in this parish for fifteen of them. I have never yet been invited
to my neighboring parishes to celebrate a Divine Liturgy.  All too  often I
have  found  that the Western Catholics of the towns  in  which  I've  been
stationed have been told,  quite specifically,  by their pastors, that they
are  to  refrain  from attending our services.   The current pastor  of  my
neighboring  Catholic  Church,   despite the fact that I have  invited  him
repeatedly  to drop by for supper, has yet to show up on my doorstep.  He's
been stationed here for seven years and more.

         Enough of the kvetching.  My next posting will attempt to describe
what  you  might expect to see and hear at a normal liturgy in  MY  parish.
After  that,   I  will  begin  a series of postings on how rites  began  to
originate  and diverge in the first place.  And God alone knows where we'll
go  from  there.   Questions  are  welcome,  as are messages  pointing  out
ambiguities,   areas which need further and more detailed explanation,  and
welcome,   too,  are any postings any of you may choose to add which  might
clarify (or possibly even confuse) the issues further.  <woeful smile>.

A demain...

Note 6 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (15002
characters).

6 (of 18) AVATAR Jan. 12, 1988 at 18:18 Eastern (14935 characters)

                      WHAT'S AN EASTERN RITE CATHOLIC?

         Perhaps the easiest way to learn more about Eastern Rite Catholics
is to attend a Divine Liturgy (which the Romans call 'The Mass')  in one of
their churches.  Plan to attend an Eastern Rite liturgy some Sunday morning
with  someone who has already experienced one.   You can readily learn from
your CATHOLIC DIRECTORY or from any Catholic priest (presumably) whether or
not  your hometown does have any Eastern Catholic Church.   In fact,   your
local  telephone book often proves to be the most readily available helpful
source  - you can usually find us listed there under "CHURCHES,"  sometimes
under Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainaian Catholic, Maronite Catholic,
often under Roman Catholic, but almost always with the qualifier which will
inform you that it is of a different rite than the Roman.   Often, too, you
can find it under "CLERGYMEN" in the yellow pages.

         Don't worry about satisfying your Sunday obligation.  That will be
fulfilled (and quite *amply* so!), for the Liturgy you attend, dependong on
the liturgical season,  may last anywhere from one hour to two.   Of course
the  length of the sermon as well as the number of those who  receive  Holy
Communion will also alter the length of the service.   According to the Old
Code  of  Canon Law (I haven't yet looked up the proper canons in  the  New
Code), *any* Catholic may fulfill the Sunday obligation by being present at
*any*  Catholic Liturgy (Canon 1249: "Legi de audiendo Sacro satisfacit qui
Missae adest quocunque ritu celebretur."  'He satisfies the law of  hearing
Mass  (see  Canon 1248)  who is present at Mass celebrated in any  Catholic
rite.)

         Some parishes and schools have adopted the practice of inviting an
EAstern  Rite Catholic priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according  to
his own rite,  but in your own church or parish hall or school.   Not many,
not many at all.   But *some*.  I  know of Diocesan Directors of Ecumenical
Affairs  who have NOT invited any Eastern Catholic priests to anything  but
an  occasional  meeting,   and  who have never so much as  set  foot  in  a
neighboring Catholic church's doors - but who consider themselves "devoted"
to "ecumenism."   While the practice is certainly laudable, and ought to be
far more widespread than it is, still it does not provide the full benefits
that  you  will  derive from experiencing the Divine Liturgy  in  a  church
designed for its special needs and surrounded by a congregation  accustomed
to the ritual and participating vigorously in it.

                             FIRST IMPRESSIONS

         For example, let us say that you have chosen to participate in the
Divine Liturgy of a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church.   Perhaps the very
first  difference  you will notice as you enter the church is  that  nobody
genuflects.  Instead, everyone makes (or is *supposed* to make) a  profound
bow  (i.e.,   a   deep bow from the waist,  with the hand  extended  nearly
touching the floor),  followed by the Sign of the Cross with the right hand
touching  the  right shoulder before the left.   Genuflection was  a  Roman
custom...a Roman *military*  custom.   It was a way for an armed soldier to
present  himself  to  his military superiors in a position  which  made  it
virtually impossible for him to attack his superior.  It was the way that a
Roman  approached  his  "Imperator,"   his "General"   (for  that  is  what
"Imperator"  means,  in Latin), his "Caesar."   In the East,  however,  one
acknowledged  (and still does)  royalty by a profound and reverential  bow.
Thus,  before entering a pew,  or before taking one's place in the body  of
the  Church,   one stands before the Blessed Sacrament and expresses  one's
belief  in  the Real Presence of the King of the Universe,  the  Prince  of
Peace, by making just that precise gesture of reverence toward royalty.

         Most members of the parish will then move to a small table, called
a "tetrapod"  (Greek = "four-footed") or "analogion" (Greek = "similarity,"
for its likeness to the main altar), which is placed fifteen or twenty feet
in front of the altar on which one will find a crucifix,  a hand cross, two
candles and an icon,  usually of Christ, the Blessed Mother,  the patron of
the  parish  church,  the Holy Angels,  or one proper to the season of  the
year,  as at Christmas, Epiphany and Easter.  The parishioner will kiss the
hand cross and the icon with reverence.

         In an Eastern Rite Church it is at or near this little altar  that
all the sacraments are adminstered.   Here infants are baptized,  marriages
will take place,  the anointing of the sick is carried out.  The Main Altar
is  reserved  for the Offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice,  and for  this
alone.    There are no side altars in the nave of the Church - only in  the
sanctuary  are there side altars,  and they are used for the preparation of
the  Divine  Liturgy.   When more than one priest wishes to  celebrate  the
Divine  Mysteries,   he joins the principal celebrant  and  CON-celebrates.
This has been the custom of the Eastern Church since time immemorial.

         Between  the  tetrapod and the altar stands an icon screen  or  an
"iconostasis"   (Greek for "icon stand").   The iconostasis is a  partition
separating the altar area from the body of the Church.  Three sets of doors
opening  into the altar area,  and are used frequently during the services.
Thus,  when you first enter an Eastern Rite church, you normally do not see
the altar, rather you see the iconostasis which will extend entirely across
the front of the sanctuary,  and often from floor to ceiling,  though it is
becoming more common in the United States to use what is called a "half" or
"three-quarter"   iconostasis.   On the icon screen are icons (images)   of
Christ,  the Blessed Mother,  the patron saint of the parish, St.  Nicholas
(the patron saint of my rite),  the Last Supper,  the Archangel Michael  or
St.  John Chrysostom (the author of one of the liturgies celebrated).  Some
icon screens are plain and simple in design, others are highly ornate.

         The doors of the icon screen will usually be closed at this  time,
unless it is the period between Easter and the Ascension.  But you can hear
quite well all that's happening in the sanctuary area.   It is at this time
that  the  celebrant,   standing at a side altar  behind  the  iconostasis,
prepares the bread and wine that will be used in this liturgy.  When he has
completed his preparatory prayers, the central doors of the iconostasis are
opened,  revealing the altar. When the steeple bells ring, the congregation
stands.   Acolytes garbed in ornate robes bow with reverence as they  enter
the sanctuary,  and their garments are quite similar to the vestments  worn
by deacons and subdeacons at a RomanRite Mass prior to Vatican II.

         The  principal  celebrant will then incense in sequence  the  Main
Altar,  the icons,  and then the congregation - some priests process up and
back down the main aisle incensing the congregation as they go.

         With  the opening ceremonies completed,  the priest will begin the
Divine Liturgy by standing on the "Amvon,"  the area immediately before the
central doors, bowing three times and reciting silently the opening prayers
of  repentance  and reconciliation with the Lord,  and as soon  as  he  has
mounted  the dias on which stands the Main Altar,  the Liturgy will  begin.
Sometimes the language will be English, sometimes Old Slavonic,  the mother
tongue to all the current modern Slavic tongues, sometimes French,  German,
Spanish - even Chinese, Japanese and American Eskimo.   It is the tradition
of  the  Eastern  Church  to use whatever language  is  understood  by  the
congregation.  In this context, Old Slavonic *is* a "vernacular"  language,
since  many Americans still speak and understand Slavic tongues,   and  Old
Slavonic  is no more alien to them than Shakespearean English is to  modern
English-speakers.

         From  time  to time during the services all the attendants  behind
the  iconostasis will march in solemn procession around the altar.   On one
occasion, this procession takes place just prior to the reading of the Holy
Gospel.    The  symbolism behind the ceremony is significant in all  cases.
The Bodyof the Church symbolizes the Home of God's People.   When the  Book
of theGospels,  The Word of God, is held aloft by the celebrant and carried
in  procession around the altar and then out into the body of  the  church,
the  faithful  reverence  the book by kissing it,  if there are  any  close
enough to it.  In symbolic form,  God's Word has come forth from God's home
to circulate amongGod's people for their sanctification.,

         For  many centuries Roman Catholics were accusomed to  maintaining
an almost tomb-like silence at the moment of consecration.  Today, however,
after the changes introduced by Vatican II,  the words of consecration  are
recited  or  sung aloud in a clear and penetrating  voice.    Eastern  Rite
celebrants, on the other hand, have *always* sung the words of consecration
aloud,   after  which  the congregation sings  its  own  affirming  "Amen,"
expressing their  own  faith and belief in the Real  Presence,   and  their
willing  choice  to  participate in the  renewal  of  Christ's  Eucharistic
Sacrifice.

         At this moment you will notice that there is no kneeling,  nor any
genuflecting - but again another of those solemnly profound bows,  possibly
even  a  complete  prostration on the floor before the main  altar  by  the
celebrant(s).   You will witness an "Elevation,"  but differently from  the
Roman  Rite,   since  the  Eastern Rite  celebrant  elevates  both  species
simultaneously  instead of individually,  while holding his arms crossed as
he holds both chalice and paten.

         You  should  have noticed by now that the congregation,   not  the
choir,   is singing the entire liturgy - and usually without the benefit of
any  missals,   hymn books or any musical accompaniment  whatever.    Choir
practice is usually unknown in most Eastern Rite parishes, since few have a
choir  -  but the entire congregation,  including the children,  kinow  the
words of the entire liturgy by heart.  Only a cantor uses a sort of missal,
since  it is his duty to sing those parts of the liturgy which are specific
to the day,  usually called the "proper"  of the day or season,  as he will
the Epistle.   If you are at all musically inclined, the singing alone will
reward you quite abundantly for the efforts you may take to participate  in
the Liturgy.   If you feel the urge to join in - even with a harmony rather
than the single monotonic chant - feel free to do so.   Many others will be
singing melodic lines intended to harmonize, even though most cannot read a
note of music.

         As  the  congregation  takes up the full-volumed  singing  of  the
Lord's Prayer,  in whatever language it may be taken, you might settle back
for  a few moments,  secure for once in the familiarity of old and familiar
territory.   "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done..."  You know the familiar
words yourself by heart.   But as you conclude your prayer with "Amen"  you
might find yourself surprised, for the priest will continue with a doxology
"For  Thine is the Kingdom and the power,  and the glory,  forever."    And
*then*   will come the "Amen."    Don't be misled.   Many will have thought
that  that  doxology  is particularly Protestant - it is  not.    It  is  a
doxology  that has been in use with the Eastern Churches a  thousand  years
before Martin Luther was born.

         When you prepare to receive Holy Communion (which you *should*  do
if  you are a Catholic),  you may wish to make special note of  the  proper
manner followed by many Eastern Churches.  Generally, you will receive in a
STANDING position,  rather than kneeling,  with your arms folded over  your
breast, instead of folded, fingers pointing upward.  The reason is simple -
you  will be receiving under both species,  and the priest will  hold  both
chalice  and  paten close to you,  with the paten under your  chin.    Your
hands,  unless they *are* folded crosswise over your chest, will simply get
in  the  way,  and possibly spill some of the Sacred Species.   So  make  a
special  attempt NOT to "fold your hands."   Then,  open your mouth widely,
but comfortably,  and tilt your head back. DO NOT EXTEND YOUR TONGUE.   The
reason is again,  the fact that you will be receiving under both species  -
i.e.,  a  cube of consecrated bread soaked in the consecrated wine will  be
placed  in your mouth with a golden spoon.   If you stick out your  tongue,
the  cube will have a tendency to roll,  and can easily fall to the  floor;
also,  sticking out your tongue increases the chances of the spoon touching
your  mouth - and it is not proper that should happen.   Above all  do  NOT
CLOSE YOUR MOUTH UPON THE SPOON!  I have seen some who have treated it like
a  popsicle.   Perhaps it's the idea that they're not going to miss even  a
*drop*   of  the wine - but RESIST!   Keep your tongue inside  your  mouth!
Besides, just think how embarrassed you'd be if the priest stuck his tongue
out right back at you!  You will find it necessary to *chew* the Host - but
you  shouldn't  really feel awkward about that;  sometimes Roman  Catholics
feel it is 'sinful'  to let the Host touch one's teeth.  It is emphatically
NOT SO.

         In Eastern Rite churches elsewhere than in the United States,  you
might  find  yourself  surprised to find that the bread was  baked  by  the
pastor's  wife (I bake my own),  and that one or two of his sons  were  the
acolytes,   while perhaps a daughter or two was singing with the choir  (if
there  was  one).   Romans will then *surely*  wonder if these  people  are
REALLY Catholic!  I assure you, they are.

         If you were inclined to follow up your first experiences with  the
Eastern Church,  you'd have still more surprises.  In most of our churches,
there will not be a set of the Stations of the Cross.   Some will not  have
confessionals.    Devotions  such as the recitation of the Rosary  and  the
observance of First Friday will be strictly *private* devotions, instead of
the quasi-liturgical observances they have become in the West.   Among  the
Feast  Days  listed on the calendar,  you'll find feast days  you've  never
*heard*  of: The Dormition of the Blessed Mother,  the Commemoration of the
Three Holy Bishops, St. Nicholas the Thaumaturge,  The Sunday of Orthodoxy,
the  Sunday of the Holy Forefathers,  St.  Elias the Prophet,  St.  Gregory
Martyr  Demeter.    You would also find fast days and  fasting  regulations
unheard of and unknown to you and your Roman Catholic friends.

                   Next: Differences *and* similarities.

Note 7 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (8007
characters).

7 (of 18) AVATAR Feb.  9, 1988 at 18:10 Eastern (7941 characters)

                        DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

         If you actually do attend a service at a Byzantine Rite Church (or
any  other unfamiliar rite of the Church),  you'll probably have dozens  of
questions  whirling  through your mind - among which will very probably  be
the  wonderment  as to whether the Church you've just visited  is  *really*
Catholic.   The Official Catholic Directory will have told you so,  and the
Yellow  Pages of the telephone directory will have done the same.   But the
doubt will remain the same.  There is something about Catholics in the West
that simply *insists*  on a uniformity of practice in order for there to be
a unity in faith.  It's false, of course, but then the existence of falsity
has never in history ever dissuaded men from following a feeling or an idea
that has with it a minimal plausibility - or a sufficiency of ignorance.

         You'll wonder,  as others have,  how these people can be  Catholic
when  they do things so very differently than other Catholics do.    You'll
wonder  why  there should be more than one rite,  even as bishops  in  this
country have, and why one rite isn't good enough.

         These people don't genuflect,  they use strange languages.    They
even seem to make the Sign of the Cross backwards.

         If  these are questions that disturb you then you are among  those
who  needs  to  spend some time and effort in trying  to  understand  those
elements  of  our faith which are essential,  and to distinguish them  from
those elements which, though very important and significant, are still only
"accidents"  (in the sense in which St.  Thomas Aquinas used it - something
not "of the essence"),  and because they are "accidents"  can easily differ
from  place to place in various parts of the world without being at all  in
conflict with unity - indeed, at times, enhancing it.

         There MUST have been times in your own life when, in spite of your
own efforts to live up to the demands of your faith,  in spite of your open
and  public  profession of the faith,  others failed to recognize you as  a
Catholic - or simply, perhaps, as a *good* Catholic,  or perhaps refused to
recognize the validity or sincerity of your beliefs.   If not,  you've been
hiding your faith too successfully.

         With  those who are not Catholic fail to recognize our efforts  to
live  up  to the demands the faith places upon us,  we are most  likely  to
exhibit dismay, perhaps even annoyance.  But when other CATHOLICS make that
*same* uncharitable judgment concerning us,  the indignity suffered is even
greater,   for  the  closer  the bonds of  brotherhood,   the  greater  the
expectations  of  love,  charity and acceptance.   Yet,  the experience  of
rejection by Catholics themselves is a very common experience.   Very, very
few of us have not experienced that - and often.  Even in the 1980s.   I've
experienced it even here online.

         Roman  Catholics often have a way of practicing their faith  which
makes them look upon their Eastern Rite brothers as heretics,   schismatics
and  even as enemies of the Church;  at best as a group of Catholics to  be
"tolerated"  within the family of Catholics until they ultimately fade into
a well-deserved oblivion and the Church is *truly* one - i.e., Roman.

         But Jesus was no "Roman Catholic,"  and certainly not a Roman Rite
Catholic, nor were Joseph, Mary, nor any of the Apostles.  The term "Roman"
was  first  joined to the term "Catholic"  ONLY IN THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY,
during  the  Reformation,  and then only to designate a  specific  body  of
Christians in that century.   It would not at all be pressing the point too
far to say that,  if Christ, Mary, Joseph and the Apostles can be deemed to
be Catholics of a given rite at all,  then they were most certainly EASTERN
Catholic,  for they lived all their lives in the eastern half of the  Roman
Empire, with the exception of Peter and Paul, who spent a dozen years or so
in Rome.

         To return to the opening comments, the comment made by the Eastern
scholar, Donald Attwater, the Catholic Church has, in fact, appeared before
the  world  for  almost nine hundred years as though it  were  of  European
origin, and has been designed by its very nature to fit into a culture that
is  thoroughly Western.   The truth,  of course,  is quite different;   the
Church of Christ is neither of these (i.e.  of Western origin,  or designed
to fit into a Western culture);  it  is designed by  its  very nature to be
"catholic,"   that  is  to  say,  "universal,"  and by NO  stretch  of  the
imagination can the Church be said to be European in origin.

         Sadly,   the vast bulk of American Catholics not only perceive  it
that way, but even in the mission territories, behave as though it were so.

         During  the  first three centuries of Christianity,  when ALL  the
rites as we know them were forming, the ceremonies commonly used throughout
the Christian world were,  in fact, mostly of Eastern origin.  During these
centuries,  too,  the  Greek  language  enjoyed  the  first place among the
languages  used  by  the Church in her ceremonies  and  in  her  documents,
whereas  it  remained  for  the third-century  Christians  to  witness  the
earliest use of the Latin tongue in the Church ceremonies in Rome,  and the
regions of the Christian world then under the domination of Rome.

         In  the  1980s there are many rites in daily  use  throughout  the
Church.    See  one  of  the  earlier postings of  this  conference  for  a
genealogical  tree of rites and their historical roots.  Depending  on  the
basis on which we make the division, we may count as low as five or as many
as nineteen.   When we speak of only four basic rites,  we are speaking  of
the  four  *families*  of rites - Roman,   Antiochene,   Alexandrian,   and
Byzantine.    In  such a division we use the basic rite as the source  from
which  many  daughter rites arose.   Eastern Rite Catholics living  in  the
United States today number roughly two million.

         The  same Catholic Church exists in all parts of the world.    The
same   truths  of  the  faith  are  professed  by  all  Catholics  of  many
nationalities and speaking many languages.  The same Sacrifice of Christ is
offered,  the same seven sacraments administered.   Yet,  side by side with
this  marvelous unity,  there exists within the Catholic Church an  equally
marvelous diversity:  a  variety of tongues and customs whose very presence
testifies  eloquently  to  the  universality within  the  Catholic  Church.
Unfortunately  this very diversity often leads to suspicion,  a   suspicion
that  is  based on false premises,  namely that unity  necessarily  implies
uniformity.   A most distressing attitude,  particularly among Catholics in
this  country  who  are most loudly insistent that even  diversity  in  the
teachings  of  the Church are to be permitted (called "dissent")   in  "The
American  Catholic Church,"  demanding for themselves that which  not  even
members  of  other  rites have even *dreamed*  of  ASKING....the  right  to
establish  one's  own  doctrine and still remain members  of  the  Catholic
Church.    Disquieting,   to  say  the  least,  to be  looked  down  on  as
"schismatics" by those who have quite specifically rejected in their lives,
if not in their specific utterances,  the very real doctrines contained  in
the universal magisterium of the Church.

         Then questions arise for most,  once they are aware that  it  *is*
possible  to  be Catholic and yet be different in praxis is this:  how  did
that diversity come about?   What caused it?  Does it still continue?   Are
there new rites arising?  Where? Why?

         To find answers suitable it is needful to return once again to the
history of the beginnings of Christianity itself.

                             (To be continued)

Note 8 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (8031
characters).

8 (of 18) AVATAR Apr. 18, 1988 at 23:18 Eastern (7965 characters)

                    HOW DID THE VARIOUS RITES ORIGINATE?

         Try to imagine yourself in Jerusalem, shortly after the Ascension.
Try.   Christianity had just been born,  though nobody yet thought of it in
those terms.  Christ has only just hours before commissioned certain men to
"feed my flock."   Empowered by Him,  these men are commanded now to  teach
men  the truths about man and man's relationship to God,  in the  doctrines
that Jesus Himself espoused and taught.  They are to add nothing.  They are
to take nothing away.   That's what is meant by the term "CREED."  A  creed
is  a set of truths that MUST be accepted and assented to by those who wish
to belong to a given group or to be a follower or disciple of His way.

         In addition to the doctrines of man's relationship to God,  Christ
had  also taught,  though in broad outline,  a  set of moral principles and
guidelines  that he *insisted*  HAD to be adhered to by those who would  be
identified  as His disciples.   "By *this*  shall all men know you  ARE  my
disciples, if you have love, one for another..." That is known as a CODE.

         And finally, Christ had brought to those who believed in Him a new
way  of  worshipping  God,  a  way that was different  from  those  of  His
forefathers,  and the forefathers of those who followed Him.   A  CULT is a
"way of worshipping."

         Creed, code and cult. With the person of Jesus Christ as the focal
point.  These three constitute the principle elements of Christianity.

         Just before His Ascension,  Christ then commanded His followers to
"preach  and  teach whatsoever I have commanded you..."   A   rather  clear
indication, I think, that somewhere along the way there were many instances
where  He  would have stopped and looked at them and said  "now,   remember
this! I'll ask questions later!"  He would have had to, much as He found it
needful  to  go  back one more time at Emmaus to explain to them  all  over
again  all those things that pertained to Him in prophecy.    He  commanded
them to preach the news of man's salvation from sin and death through unity
with Him.   They were to go into the whole world, not just home,  and bring
with them,  wherever they went, Christ's CREED, Christ's CODE, and Christ's
CULT.  In short, they were supposed to "invent" (for lack of a better word)
Christianity  for  the world,  in order to bring to it *through*  this  new
medium, these three elements.

         At  my  ordination  someone gave me a wooden  plaque  engraved  "A
priest is a man, taken from among men,  and ordained for men in the service
of  God,   to  bring man to God and God to  man,   through  Jesus  Christ."
Somewhere  along the way,  someone lifted that from my walls and I've  been
trying ever since to recover it.   But I've never identified who stole  it.
Still, it brings with it the message of Christianity.  Through oneness with
Christ, men are supposed to return to the Father.

         It isn't difficult to understand a creed.   Briefly, a creed is no
more  than a "summary"  of the principle beliefs of a religion.   And  it's
just about as easy to understand the idea of a code.   A code, when used in
a religious sense,  is simply a summary of the principles and guidelines by
which men choose which actions are good,  and which to be avoided; a method
by which he can discern the moral elements of his moral conduct.

         Cult,  however, seems to pose a different problem.  It involves so
*many*  diverse elements.  One of the most fundamental elements of any cult
is  the  idea of sacrifice.   It is so fundamental,  in fact,  that  it  is
difficult  to  conceive of a cult *without*  the idea of  sacrifice.    But
"sacrifice"  has many meanings. It has one meaning in married life, another
in  baseball.    It means one thing to a Jew,  another to a  Hindu,   still
another  to a Christian.   Historically,  of course,  the  idea  underlying
"sacrifice"   is manifold.   It is essentially a giving of a gift.   But it
also involves the mandatory destruction of that gift - i.e.,  the rendering
of  it  as impossible to be recovered for our own use.   A  gift  which  is
recovered is never conceived of as sacrificial - even in a secular society.
Sacrificial gifts, as opposed to other gifts (such as bribes),  are offered
in  order that through *that*  gift,  through that which is given,  one can
express to another something which cannot be perceived by the senses. E.G.,
how important a place one holds in another's life.

         Let   me  illustrate.    You're  all  familiar  with  "gratitude."
Gratitude has no shape,  no size, no weight, no color.  Nothing that can be
measured with instruments or sensed by any of our physical senses.    There
is no length or breadth or weight to it, as there would be to a stone, or a
beer glass,  or a bottle of Chateau Petrus.  I do not add to my height when
I become grateful for something,  so you cannot tell I am grateful from  my
enhanced stature.  I do not smell prettier,  or look more handsome (or less
ugly, depending on your perspective).   There is nothing tangibly different
about  me when I am grateful for your kindnesses,  which I often am.    You
cannot *taste*  my gratitude, as you could the Chateau Petrus.   Though I'm
sure Cramer would be willing to at least make the attempt to see whether or
not the Petrus would be acceptable in lieu. (laugh)

         Gratitude is not,  in fact, a *thing*.  It is only something which
can be expressed.   And the normal mode of expressing gratitude is by gift-
giving.   Perhaps flowers, precious stones, pretty pictures, something nice
to eat or drink.  The gift then, though it is not the gratitude, does carry
with it the *message*  of gratitude.  It is signficant.   Sense-perceptible
gifts bring with them interior messages of the giver to the recipient  that
is not sense-perceptible to either.

         From the days of Adam and Eve,  their children Cain and Abel,  our
forefather Adam and Mother Sarah of the Happy Smile,  through the reigns of
Saul  and  David until the time of Jesus Himself,  the Jewish  people  had,
*UNDER  DIVINE COMMAND AND DIRECTION*,  been offering diverse gifts to  the
Lord of the Universe for diverse reasons.  For purification, for atonement,
for  gratitude,   for forgiveness.   Usually in the form of doves,   lambs,
heifers, wheat, wine.  Usually,  these ritual sacrifices were followed by a
ritual sacrificial meal.  The Seder was such.  The Jews offered these gifts
tot he Almighty for all that He had already done for them,  and for what He
had  done for mankind,  though most of it had not yet recognized Him or it.
By  so  expressing  their gratitude,  and doing  so  publicly,   they  were
expressing  a  very  profound truth - they were acknowledging  God's  total
supremacy over His creation, and simultaneously acknowledging man's *total*
dependence on Him for al that they were,  all that they possessed,  and all
that they hoped for.

         Against  this background,  let us consider what Jesus did for  all
mankind  at the Last Supper and on Mount Calvary the next day.    With  the
simplest of words, the simplest of materials,  and the simplest of actions,
as the Liturgy of St.  John Chrysostom puts it:  "On the night on which  He
gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread...and having given
thanks,   and  blessed  and consecrated it,  He broke it,   saying  to  His
disciples and apostles:  'Take, eat.  This is My Body,  which is broken for
you for the remission of sins....'  In like manner, the cup, saying: 'Drink
of this,  all of you; this is My blood of the New Testament, which is being
shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.'"

         We  shall soon see how this commemoration affected the history  of
the  world,   and resulted in a rich tapestry of spiritual  delights  being
offered to the Lord, in thanksgiving for all that He has done for mankind.

Note 9 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (9119
characters).

9 (of 18) AVATAR Apr. 22, 1988 at 18:14 Eastern (9053 characters)

                      THE LITURGY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

         How  Our  Lord  celebrated  the first Divine  Liturgy  is  clearly
delineated in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper.   We have  had
portrayed for us there the simplest elements of that Most Holy Sacrifice.

         Our Lord took the bread and wine and prayed over them,  He offered
them up to the Father with a blessing and then consecrated them,   changing
them  into  His  Own Precious Body and Blood.   He then gave  them  to  the
apostles in Holy Communion.   Communion.  Oneness. With Him.  PHYSICAL one-
ness with Him, as *well* as spiritual.

         The  Savior told the apostles to do the same thing.   To do it  in
commemoration  of Him,  and to bear witness concerning Him until the end of
time.  They did so faithfully.  Wherever they preached the Gospel they also
celebrated the Eucharist.

         At  first  the  Jewish-Christian converts continued  to  pray  and
perform  their  religious worship obligations in the Temple  at  Jerusalem.
They  went  to the synagogues,  reserving the celebration of the  Eucharist
until  the  evening hours when it was usually joined to the  communal  meal
they then took as a matter of custom.   It was in this way that they obeyed
the Lord to "do this in commemoration of Me" when He instituted the Blessed
Sacrament as an evening meal.

         Problems,  however, arose swiftly,  as they always do when someone
either sets himself apart or is seen by others to be set apart - or even to
be  simply "different"  somehow.   It wasn't long at all before the  Jewish
authorities initiated a persecution of the Jews.   The Romans as yet had no
part in it - it was,  for them,  a  purely local and religious matter to be
settled  among the Jews themselves.   Soon,  however,  the politics of  the
region  brought down the Legions of Rome upon Jerusalem,  and with the rage
of Rome, Jerusalem was quite literally destroyed.

         Simultaneously,   alongside  the destruction of Palestine and  the
leveling of Jerusalem, gentiles were beginning to join the Christians at an
ever-increasing  rate.   More and more thousands of Gentiles were  entering
the Church.  It became quite impossible, if only because of the numbers, to
frequent  the local synagogue and to be a Christian at the same time.   The
numbers of converts made the one impossible, the persecution made the other
equally impossible.

         Christians,   however,  never completely outgrew  their  synagogal
background.   Among  those  elements which were borrowed  from  our  Jewish
heritage  came the service we still call the "Liturgy of the  Catechumens."
Today  we  refer to it more commonly as "The Liturgy of the Word,"  but  it
reflects in form (and almost as much in content)  the old synagogal  forms,
by  which  the  Christians now held their own  synagogue  services,   which
quickly  developed into a kind of synagogal service in the morning,  and  a
Eucharistic  service in the evening.   The format eventually developed over
the  centuries  into the entire form known as "The  Office,"   "The  Divine
Office,"    "The Liturgical Hours,"  or any of a dozen  other  appellations
which came to describe those processes by which Christians have ever sought
to turn the entire day into a way of worshipping,  glorifying and  praising
God.    Beginning  with  the "Liturgy of the Catechumens"  in  the  morning
(something like "lauds" now), frequent prayer during the day (probably as a
matter of simple convenience developing into naturally marked times such as
mid-morning,  noon, mid-afternoon, early evening,  etc.),  and completed at
the  end of the day with the full Eucharistic service combined with a  meal
or supper which we still remember as "The Agape," the Feast of Love.

         It is not difficult to understand, however, that it swiftly became
difficult  for people to gather twice for service on Sundays,  particularly
under  the burdens inflicted by growing persecution.  Frequent movement  to
and  from  identifiable  locations  would quickly prove the  undoing  of  a
clandestine  group  simply  trying to stay alive.   The era  of  the  Great
Persecutions  (64-313  A.D.)  made it necessary to assemble secretly.   Not
every city had "catacombs."  So, at a very early date,  it became customary
to  join the synagogue service together with the Eucharistic  service  into
one sacred function.   Very soon into the Christian era we have the  Divine
Liturgy already formed into its current form, at least in broad outline.

         First  one  would find the "Liturgy of the  Catechumens"   as  the
beginning  part of the service.   So-called because the catechumens,  those
converts still taking instructions in the faith but not yet baptized,  were
allowed to be present ONLY at this portion of the service.  The Eucharistic
Feast  itself was only for the initiates - and the Byzantine  Liturgies  to
this  day  commemorate that fact by calling for the catechumens  to  depart
just  prior to the profession of faith.   There would be readings from  the
sacred scriptures (at that time,  mostly the Old Testament; much of the New
Testament  had not yet been written,  and much of what had been written had
not  yet percolated its way throughout the entire community,   though  much
had).   Then would follow the "Liturgy of the Faithful"  from the fact that
only  baptized  believers could be present during the  celebration  of  the
Eucharist.    Today  this  is still called the  Liturgy  of  the  Eucharist
(literally,  in Greek,  "Thanksgiving") because the Liturgy proper,  or the
confection of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, took place at that point
- the chief characteristic of the Christian service.

         During the early days of the Church, both Saturday AND Sunday were
kept  as holydays but soon Sunday came to be preferred because the Lord had
risen from the dead on a Sunday - and again,  two consecutive holydays with
the  attendant need for communities to gather in common made the  community
itself  increasingly vulnerable to police detection and penetration.    The
fact  that it was also on a Sunday that the Holy Spirit had descended  upon
the  Apostles  in the Upper Room did not damage the speed of the  trend  to
adopt only Sunday as the proper holyday of observation.

         There is a remnant, however, even today remaining in the Byzantine
Rite of the early state of things.   Liturgically,  Saturday is *still*   a
liturgical  day  in  the East.   And the Liturgical  Day  still  begins  at
sundown.    And the Liturgical Year still begins on September  1st.    Even
though Sunday is the Day of Obligation,  on which all are obliged to render
public  worship  to  the Father,  Son and Holy  Spirit,   Saturday  in  the
Byzantine  Rite is not a fast day,  except for the Saturdays of Lent,   and
even in Lent the Liturgy is always celebrated on Saturday,  whereas  during
Lenten  weekdays the Liturgy is NOT celebrated.   Only the "Liturgy of  the
Pre-Sanctified" is celebrated traditionally on Lenten weekdays, and that is
not  truly  a liturgy because it lacks a consecration.   It is,   in  fact,
Vespers  joined  to a communion service,  and the consecrated  species  are
actually consecrated at a prior Liturgy.  Hence, of course,  the name "Pre-
Sanctified."   Additionally, there are many Saturdays during the Liturgical
Year that have Propers of the Liturgy,  like the Sundays.   There *are*  no
"propers"  for, say, the Sixth Wednesday after Pentecost.  There IS for the
First Saturday of Lent; or for Lazarus Saturday; or Akathistos Saturday; or
for  the five All Souls'  Saturdays.   Saturdays in the Eastern  Rites  are
*almost* as sacred as are Sundays.

         The persecutions lasted more than 200 years - a long time.  A time
quite long enough for necessary practices to harden into traditions, habits
of  mind and attitudes.   Constnatine issued the famous Edict of  Milan  in
313,  not, as customarily has been said,  "establishing Christianity as the
state religion," a quite false statement, but establishing their freedom to
practice Christianity without let or hindrance, just as the other religions
in the Empire had been accustomed during the entire history of the  period.
It  simply  restored  Christians to equal status.    The  establishment  of
Christianity  as  the  state religion came considerably  later.    Strictly
speaking, however, the Edict of Milan did no more than permit Christians to
come out of hiding,  build churches and basilicas and hold services freely,
without fear of punishment, perseuction or discrimination,  as often and as
long as they wished, whenever and however they so chose.

         At  that point,  the development of the Liturgy flowered  greatly,
bringing  with  it  a richness and diversity quite unexpected  by  everyone
involved.   And bringing with it problems which nobody could have foreseen,
and difficulties which, because unanticipated,  would have the most serious
consequences for the history of the world.

Note 10 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (9120
characters).

10 (of 18) AVATAR May   9, 1988 at 23:11 Eastern (9053 characters)

                      THE LITURGY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

         How  Our  Lord  celebrated  the first Divine  Liturgy  is  clearly
delineated in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper.   We have  had
portrayed for us there the simplest elements of that Most Holy Sacrifice.

         Our Lord took the bread and wine and prayed over them,  He offered
them up to the Father with a blessing and then consecrated them,   changing
them  into  His  Own Precious Body and Blood.   He then gave  them  to  the
apostles in Holy Communion.   Communion.  Oneness. With Him.  PHYSICAL one-
ness with Him, as *well* as spiritual.

         The  Savior told the apostles to do the same thing.   To do it  in
commemoration  of Him,  and to bear witness concerning Him until the end of
time.  They did so faithfully.  Wherever they preached the Gospel they also
celebrated the Eucharist.

         At  first  the  Jewish-Christian converts continued  to  pray  and
perform  their  religious worship obligations in the Temple  at  Jerusalem.
They  went  to the synagogues,  reserving the celebration of the  Eucharist
until  the  evening hours when it was usually joined to the  communal  meal
they then took as a matter of custom.   It was in this way that they obeyed
the Lord to "do this in commemoration of Me" when He instituted the Blessed
Sacrament as an evening meal.

         Problems,  however, arose swiftly,  as they always do when someone
either sets himself apart or is seen by others to be set apart - or even to
be  simply "different"  somehow.   It wasn't long at all before the  Jewish
authorities initiated a persecution of the Jews.   The Romans as yet had no
part in it - it was,  for them,  a  purely local and religious matter to be
settled  among the Jews themselves.   Soon,  however,  the politics of  the
region  brought down the Legions of Rome upon Jerusalem,  and with the rage
of Rome, Jerusalem was quite literally destroyed.

         Simultaneously,   alongside  the destruction of Palestine and  the
leveling of Jerusalem, gentiles were beginning to join the Christians at an
ever-increasing  rate.   More and more thousands of Gentiles were  entering
the Church.  It became quite impossible, if only because of the numbers, to
frequent  the local synagogue and to be a Christian at the same time.   The
numbers of converts made the one impossible, the persecution made the other
equally impossible.

         Christians,   however,  never completely outgrew  their  synagogal
background.   Among  those  elements which were borrowed  from  our  Jewish
heritage  came the service we still call the "Liturgy of the  Catechumens."
Today  we  refer to it more commonly as "The Liturgy of the Word,"  but  it
reflects in form (and almost as much in content)  the old synagogal  forms,
by  which  the  Christians now held their own  synagogue  services,   which
quickly  developed into a kind of synagogal service in the morning,  and  a
Eucharistic  service in the evening.   The format eventually developed over
the  centuries  into the entire form known as "The  Office,"   "The  Divine
Office,"    "The Liturgical Hours,"  or any of a dozen  other  appellations
which came to describe those processes by which Christians have ever sought
to turn the entire day into a way of worshipping,  glorifying and  praising
God.    Beginning  with  the "Liturgy of the Catechumens"  in  the  morning
(something like "lauds" now), frequent prayer during the day (probably as a
matter of simple convenience developing into naturally marked times such as
mid-morning,  noon, mid-afternoon, early evening,  etc.),  and completed at
the  end of the day with the full Eucharistic service combined with a  meal
or supper which we still remember as "The Agape," the Feast of Love.

         It is not difficult to understand, however, that it swiftly became
difficult  for people to gather twice for service on Sundays,  particularly
under  the burdens inflicted by growing persecution.  Frequent movement  to
and  from  identifiable  locations  would quickly prove the  undoing  of  a
clandestine  group  simply  trying to stay alive.   The era  of  the  Great
Persecutions  (64-313  A.D.)  made it necessary to assemble secretly.   Not
every city had "catacombs."  So, at a very early date,  it became customary
to  join the synagogue service together with the Eucharistic  service  into
one sacred function.   Very soon into the Christian era we have the  Divine
Liturgy already formed into its current form, at least in broad outline.

         First  one  would find the "Liturgy of the  Catechumens"   as  the
beginning  part of the service.   So-called because the catechumens,  those
converts still taking instructions in the faith but not yet baptized,  were
allowed to be present ONLY at this portion of the service.  The Eucharistic
Feast  itself was only for the initiates - and the Byzantine  Liturgies  to
this  day  commemorate that fact by calling for the catechumens  to  depart
just  prior to the profession of faith.   There would be readings from  the
sacred scriptures (at that time,  mostly the Old Testament; much of the New
Testament  had not yet been written,  and much of what had been written had
not  yet percolated its way throughout the entire community,   though  much
had).   Then would follow the "Liturgy of the Faithful"  from the fact that
only  baptized  believers could be present during the  celebration  of  the
Eucharist.    Today  this  is still called the  Liturgy  of  the  Eucharist
(literally,  in Greek,  "Thanksgiving") because the Liturgy proper,  or the
confection of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, took place at that point
- the chief characteristic of the Christian service.

         During the early days of the Church, both Saturday AND Sunday were
kept  as holydays but soon Sunday came to be preferred because the Lord had
risen from the dead on a Sunday - and again,  two consecutive holydays with
the  attendant need for communities to gather in common made the  community
itself  increasingly vulnerable to police detection and penetration.    The
fact  that it was also on a Sunday that the Holy Spirit had descended  upon
the  Apostles  in the Upper Room did not damage the speed of the  trend  to
adopt only Sunday as the proper holyday of observation.

         There is a remnant, however, even today remaining in the Byzantine
Rite of the early state of things.   Liturgically,  Saturday is *still*   a
liturgical  day  in  the East.   And the Liturgical  Day  still  begins  at
sundown.    And the Liturgical Year still begins on September  1st.    Even
though Sunday is the Day of Obligation,  on which all are obliged to render
public  worship  to  the Father,  Son and Holy  Spirit,   Saturday  in  the
Byzantine  Rite is not a fast day,  except for the Saturdays of Lent,   and
even in Lent the Liturgy is always celebrated on Saturday,  whereas  during
Lenten  weekdays the Liturgy is NOT celebrated.   Only the "Liturgy of  the
Pre-Sanctified" is celebrated traditionally on Lenten weekdays, and that is
not  truly  a liturgy because it lacks a consecration.   It is,   in  fact,
Vespers  joined  to a communion service,  and the consecrated  species  are
actually consecrated at a prior Liturgy.  Hence, of course,  the name "Pre-
Sanctified."   Additionally, there are many Saturdays during the Liturgical
Year that have Propers of the Liturgy,  like the Sundays.   There *are*  no
"propers"  for, say, the Sixth Wednesday after Pentecost.  There IS for the
First Saturday of Lent; or for Lazarus Saturday; or Akathistos Saturday; or
for  the five All Souls'  Saturdays.   Saturdays in the Eastern  Rites  are
*almost* as sacred as are Sundays.

         The persecutions lasted more than 200 years - a long time.  A time
quite long enough for necessary practices to harden into traditions, habits
of  mind and attitudes.   Constnatine issued the famous Edict of  Milan  in
313,  not, as customarily has been said,  "establishing Christianity as the
state religion," a quite false statement, but establishing their freedom to
practice Christianity without let or hindrance, just as the other religions
in the Empire had been accustomed during the entire history of the  period.
It  simply  restored  Christians to equal status.    The  establishment  of
Christianity  as  the  state religion came considerably  later.    Strictly
speaking, however, the Edict of Milan did no more than permit Christians to
come out of hiding,  build churches and basilicas and hold services freely,
without fear of punishment, perseuction or discrimination,  as often and as
long as they wished, whenever and however they so chose.

         At  that point,  the development of the Liturgy flowered  greatly,
bringing  with  it  a richness and diversity quite unexpected  by  everyone
involved.   And bringing with it problems which nobody could have foreseen,
and difficulties which, because unanticipated,  would have the most serious
consequences for the history of the world.

Note 11 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (9038
characters).

11 (of 18) AVATAR May  16, 1988 at 23:19 Eastern (8971 characters)

                                  RITES X

         As  a direct consequence of the persecutions the entire experience
of  the Church was fluid for its first four centuries.   That,  of  course,
includes   its  liturgical  practices.    Communication,   hindered  as  it
necessarily  was,  made any standardization of practices in worship a  slow
process indeed.   As in any police state, even in our own times, it was far
more  dangerous for large groups of people to move from place to  place  to
exchange  experiences directly than it was for single individual to  convey
messages to other groups.  Messages are far more readily concealed than are
human beings.  When human beings must travel, it is rare for them to travel
in  concealment - concealed means of travel are rare indeed,  and  normally
require  at least the assets of a large corporation or a small state,  even
today.  It ought not surprise anyone that for the first few centuries there
were  no hard,  fixed rules on how the liturgy was to be celebrated,  apart
from  the  commonly  accepted  principles that  certain  fundamentals  were
essential.    As,  for example,  the three main parts of the liturgy -  the
Offertory,   the  Consecration and the Communion.   The precise rubrics  of
celebration  were  rather less important.   It is true,  of  course,   that
everywhere  the general patterns were observed - chants (hymns and psalms),
readings  from  the Sacred Scriptures,  and whatever  readings  they  could
manage out of what manuscripts were available of the New Testament,  public
prayer led by their presbyters and a sermon by the bishop or presbyter  who
presided over the liturgy.

         In the very earliest days the bread and wine were brought directly
to  the  place  of  sacrifice  (the  altar),   often  by  the  congregation
themselves,  along with their gifts for the clergy.   Those gifts were what
kept the clergy alive,  for the clergy were the most hunted,  and could not
afford to be seen in public life,  with 'normal'  occupations and  'normal'
lifestyles.    The risks of being exposed by the casual  and  unintentional
error were simply too real - as they are even now in the Soviet Union  with
Eastern  Catholics,  who are even now hunted down by the army with  troops,
guns and dogs.   Literally.  Hunted like animals.  "Glasnost'"  appears not
to  extend quite this far in the Soviet Union - and it is an oddity I never
hear mentioned that it is legal in the Soviet Union, guaranteed not only by
its  constitution,   but  even  in practice,  to  belong  to  any  religion
whatsoever, provided certain prohibited behaviors are eschewed.  Except for
ONE  religion.    One may be a practicing Roman  Catholic,   Jew,   Moslem,
Baptist,  Lutheran - anything.  Anything *except* a Byzantine Catholic,  of
either  Ruthenian or Ukrainian rite.   These two are banned specifically by
law.  Curious, isn't it?

         As I was saying,  (back to the Roman Empire),  the clergy were the
most exposed - and loss of the clergy would have been a prohibitive loss to
the  early Church.   So the "gifts"  that were brought for offerings to the
liturgies  included  gifts  not  only for God,  but  for  the  support  and
nourishment  of their clandestine clergy.   The presiding bishop or  priest
would then choose a little of the bread and some of the wine,  and offer to
God that which would be used in the Eucharist.   Remnants of that are still
found  in  the "Proskomedia"  -  the Preparation - of the Liturgies of  the
Eastern Rites and at least of the old Tridentine Liturgy.  I  suspect there
are  traces  of that as well in the Novus Ordo.   There  is  a  fascinating
custom among Eastern Christians,  Catholics and Orthodox alike,  which  are
direct descendants of that custom.   In Slavonic it is called "Mirovanije,"
and each language has its own variant.   Mirovanije is a special  anointing
with blessed oil on special major holydays of obligation,  accompanied by a
distribution  of  blessed bread - the remnants of the Agape still alive  in
the Twentieth Century.

         After  a selection of the elements of consecration the  priest  or
bishop  would  recite a prayer of thanksgiving,  which we  today  call  the
Preface,   in which God is thanked for all His benefits bestowed upon us  -
for the gifts of creation,  of birth and life, of redemption and salvation,
for the gift of this Holy Sacrifice itself,  and the Gift of the  Eucharist
about  to  be shared,  given us by the Lord Himself on the night before  He
died,  or (as the Liturgies of St.  Basil and St.  John Chrysostom have it)
"on the night on which He surrendered Himself for the life of the world..."

         Perhaps the priest or bishop was particularly emotional.  Or maybe
of an oratorical bent - a not unusual phenomenon in a Roman Empire in which
great emphasis was placed on oratorical skills.   The Preface often  turned
out to be a LONG prayer.   Perhaps, however, the celebrant was a simple man
of  short words,  in which case the Preface was apt to be short and abrupt,
surely direct.

         The  Consecration  would follow,  together with  more  prayers  of
thanksgiving, and adding prayers of adoration and petition.

         The Lord's Prayer was the introduction to the Eucharistic Banquet.
Again,   the presiding clergyman would lead with prayers  of  thanksgiving,
offer a blessing, and the liturgy would be ended.

         This  very  simple outline of the liturgy in the early church  was
already apparent in the writings of St.  Justin Martyr, who lived about the
middle  of the second century,  less than 50  years after the death of  St.
John the Apostle.

                            THE ORIGIN OF RITES

         As  churches  were  established in the fourth  century,   definite
patterns of worship began to appear.  The great centers of civilization and
learning, places like Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria,
and  the  like,  began to develop their own distinctive  practices,   based
largely on their local cultures.   The characteristic number of hymns,  the
formats  and timing of processions of clergy and people,  the uses of  aids
like  incense  and ornate vestments and the very patterns of the  vestments
themselves,   began  gradually  to  become more  and  more  fixed.    Areas
surrounding  these centers of learning tended to imitate them in this  area
as they would have in others: in the areas of literature, music,  the arts;
liturgy would not have been exempted from the normal instinct of people  to
adapt  from the familiar only gradually - such that even that to which they
were adapting would already be familiar.

         In  this  fashion  grew up the major liturgical families  -  those
groups  we call "rites."   Rome,  Alexandria (Egypt's Alexandria,  not Asia
Minor's), Antioch (Syrian Antioch, not Pisidian Antioch), and in very short
order, at Constantinople, the Eastern Capital of the Empire.

         From these great centers of culture and learning missionaries left
to  visit and to teach neighboring countries.   They naturally carried with
them what they knew.  It is impossible to carry with one knowledge one does
not  have.    The  forms of the liturgy as they  were  accustomed  to  them
accompanied  them.   Where those missions were distant  and  communications
slow and frequent of disruption,  variations crept in,  adapting themselves
to  the  new local cultures,  so that eventually,  even  newer  rites  were
formed.    So  the Eastern Syrians in modern-day Iraq and  Persia  came  to
differ somewhat from the Syrians at Antioch;  the Abyssinians  (Ethiopians)
who received their faith from Egyptian Alexandria developed their own forms
of the Coptic Rite.

         The  bishops  who presided over these major families  of  churches
were called "patriarchs," literally "father-rulers."   The territories over
which  they  ruled  as  patriarchs were  called,   none  too  surprisingly,
patriarchates.     Definite  sanction  for  the  entire  history  of   that
development  was  given  firm and distinct approval  at  that  first  Great
Council,   Nicaea,   325.    And  again in 381  at  the  First  Council  of
Constantinople.

         It  is  truly said that "there is no such thing as a free  lunch."
Not even in the realm of ecclesiology.  The very patriarchal structure that
had  grown  up facilitating the spread of Christianity would  very  shortly
also  facilitate the spread of heresy - a heresy that tore the very  fabric
of  the Church so viciously that its basic form remains even to  this  day,
though under another name.  Arianism.  And its daughters.

         That same patriarchal structure also preserved the Church  against
the  assaults  of  that heresy,  and permitted it to  maintain  intact  the
doctrines  handed  down from the Apostles - that doctrine  Catholics  today
still refer to as "The Deposit of Faith."


         But more of that in the next posting.

Note 12 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (12809
characters).

12 (of 18) AVATAR June  1, 1988 at 18:13 Eastern (12741 characters)

                          THE ORIGIN OF RITES - XI

                                  ARIANISM

         At around the turn of the 4th century Anno Domini, Arius, a priest
of  Egyptian  Alexandria,  began to preach that the Second  Person  of  the
Trinity,   known to us as Jesus Christ,  was not truly equal to the Father,
nor  therefore could he be "true God of true God."   He was,  according  to
Arius,  nothing more than a creature immensely more perfect than any  other
creature, but a creature, nonetheless.  The seed of heresy was planted, and
in the political guerrilla warfare of the Roman Empire there would be found
much  fertilizer  and  water.   The heresy was to grow  like  wildfire  and
penetrate to the inmost citadels of the new church.

         In  a sudden and only-once precedented event,  the bishops of  the
entire  Catholic  world  (which  at that time  was  still  synonymous  with
"Christian world")  gathered together at a peaceful little village in  Asia
Minor, just across the Bosphorus from New Rome, the City of Constantine, in
325.    The single precedent had been that famous meeting of the  Apostles,
the living Followers and Chosen Disciples of the Lord, including Paul,  who
had  met  at  Jerusalem three centuries earlier.   Arius'   teachings  were
condemned and Arius himself declared 'heretikos' - literally, in the Greek,
from "hai-RAY-o", "i) to grasp, seize, take by force; ii) to get into one's
power, to conquer, to overpower, to seize, to kill; iii) to catch,  to take
by  stealth,   to seduce."   Many individuals,  including a large  portion,
perhaps even a majority,  of the existing bishops in the Church of the day,
were lost to Arianism,  though at no time was any whole nation cut off from
the  Church because of Arianism.   Arianism penetrated the  entire  western
world  as  well through the invasions of the various  Gothic  tribes,   the
Goths, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Ohmygoths....

                       NESTORIUS AND THE CHALDEAEANS

         After  a  prolonged  and  protracted  struggle  which   frequently
involved the use of military force and resulted in civil war in many  areas
of  the  empire,   Arianism  disappeared,  at  least  formally,   from  the
intellectual  scene  of the age,  and Nestorius of  Constantinople  taught,
apparently  in an attempt to rectify the damage done by the Arian  schisms,
that  in Christ there really ARE two natures.   All well and good,  so far.
Unfortunately,  he also predicated that conclusion upon another  statement,
that there were also two PERSONS,  one human, one divine.  Mary, therefore,
cannot  be called the Mother of God (Theotokos),  he said,  because she was
only the mother of the human person, not the divine one.  In only a century
after Nicaea,  it became necessary to call another council to deal with the
new  threat to unity.   The bishops once again met in Ephesus in  431   and
condemned this doctrine as heretical as well, and proclaimed Mary to be the
Theotokos,  the true Mother of God, not so much in veneration of Mary,  but
to  uphold the singleness of the personhood of Jesus Christ.   One  person,
divine AND human, at one and the same time.

         There  was  much  less violence this time,   though  many  Syrians
refused to accept the decision, even though Ephesus lay within the confines
of the province of Syria at the time,  and they fled to the Persian Empire,
the ancient and persistent enemy of the Roman Empire from time  immemorial,
fleeing ever eastward until they had built solid communities as far east as
Khitai  and  the  Hidden Islands.   As late as the 13th century  they  held
powerful and valued positions in the court of the Great Khan, and Nestorian
communities   exist  to  this  very  day.    There  are  several  Nestorian
communities extant in the United States even now.

         Most of the Nestorians, however, returned to the Church in Eastern
Syria and,  in time with changes that occurred naturally over a church ever
more  widely scattered,  developed into what is now known as the  Chaldaean
Rite  of  the Catholic Church.   Their chief bishop,  who is known  as  the
Patriarch  of Babylon,  still lives at Mosul in Iraq.   They  number  about
195,000  at last counting, with a few thousand in the United States.  There
is a small parish in Chicago, and another in Detroit.

         Many  of  the Nestorian churches which were established  in  India
also  returned to the Catholic Church in the 16th century,  as a result  of
the  diligent  efforts  of  the  Jesuits  under  the  Portuguese  expansion
following  Prince Henry the Navigator and Vasco da Gama's  circumnavigation
of  the  Cape,  and forms today what is known  as  the  Syro-Malabar  Rite,
somewhat latinized, but lately, under the urging of Pope John II,  revising
their  liturgies  and spiritual practices to conform more closely to  their
more   ancient  and  more  classical  customs  as  they  existed  prior  to
latinization.   The chief Prelate  of the Syro-Malabarese is the Archbishop
of Ernakulam,   are  well over  a million in number in India currently  and
growing rapidly.   Rapidly enough in fact,   to  have become the  target of
official governmental repression in law and in practice, and rapidly enough
to  have  generated some  very angry Roman Rite letters to Rome complaining
about  their success in what some Indian Roman Rite Catholics bishops  have
come to view for some reason as their sole purview.   There is no  official
representation of the Syro-Malabarese  in America that I know of,  though I
know of quite a  few individuals who,  having no parishes or ecclesiastical
jurisdiction  of  their own,  quite naturally attend another rite  wherever
they find themselves.

                                MONOPHYSITES


         The  pendulum  never  seems to cease its swing.    No  sooner  had
Nestorius  been condemned in his attempt to correct for the errors of Arius
by  postulating  two persons and two natures,  than someone else  took  the
pendulum  once again to the other extreme,  postulating that Our  Lord  had
only  one person - but also only one nature.   That in some way Our  Lord's
human nature had been "swallowed up"  or "subsumed"  in His Divine Nature -
therefore the term "Monophysite"  - "one-natured."  This was condemned only
twenty years after Ephesus (431)  in 451  at Chalcedon.   Once again  there
were many who refused to submit to the Council of Chalcedon's decision that
in Christ there is ONE *divine*  Person, and TWO *distinct* natures,  human
and  divine.    Again,   many Syrians left the Church and became  known  as
Jacobites.   There were also many from Egypt who accepted Monophysitism and
maintain it to this day.   There seems also to have been a heavy element of
secular  politics  involved,  with both Egypt and Syria attempting  several
revolts  to achieve independence from New Rome,  often with the urging  and
financial  support of the essentially Zoroastrian Persian Empire.   Dissent
in the Empire served Persia's interests well.

         Again,   there  was a period of return  and  reconciliation,   the
Jacobites eventually growing into what is now called the Pure Syrian  Rite.
Their numbers are currently somewhere in the range of 100,000,  their chief
bishop is the Patriarch of Antioch and lives in Beirut,  Lebanon.   A   few
hundred live here in the United States,  but they have no churches of their
own at the moment and normally frequent churches of the Maronite rite.

          Another  group  of Indian Christians which uses the  Pure  Syrian
rite  returned to the Catholic Church with their charismatic  leader,   Mar
Ivanios  in  1930.   They form the Malankarese rite,  and number  nearly  a
million  today.    Their chief prelate is the Archbishop of  Trivandrum  in
southern  India,  and are just beginning to have a presence in  the  United
States.

         Egyptian  Monophysites also separated from the rest of the Church,
taking  with them the majority of the faithful of the Alexandrian or Coptic
rite.  Ethiopians, dependent as they were on Egypt for sustenance, followed
Egypt's example.  The current head of the Alexandrian Monophysite Church is
Pope  Shenouda  III  - excuse me,  was.   The new Pope  of  Alexandria  was
installed  only recently,  if I remember correctly,  and somehow  the  name
Stephanos II comes to mind.  It is incorrect to group Monophysites with the
Orthodox, though most do.  It is as incorrect to identify Monophysites with
Eastern  Orthodox  as  it is to identify  Eastern  Catholics  or  Byzantine
Catholics  with Eastern Orthodox.   To the Orthodox,  the Monophysites  are
*still* heretics, and they resent greatly being grouped with Monophysites.

         There are a number of Coptic Christians who returned to unity with
the  Catholic Church to the number of about 80,000,  and have only  a  tiny
representation in the United States.  The chief bishop of Catholic Copts in
Egypt  is  the  Patriarch  of Alexandria who lives  in  Cairo.    Ethiopian
Catholics also number about 50,000  or so,  with an Archbishop and a bishop
in  Abyssinia,   and  another  bishop  in  Eritrea.    They  have  recently
established a presence in the Washington, DC area.

                                  MELKITES

         Since  most  of the Syrians and Egyptians had separated  from  the
Church over the questions of Arius, Nestor and Monophysitism, those who had
not  broken  away  turned  more and more  constantly  and  consistently  to
Constantinople for support and assistance,  often for the protection of the
military  in  the  face  of  some  really  virulent  persecution  when  the
dissenters were in the majority.   And that, of course,  meant appealing to
the Emperor himself.   Hence they became known as "The King's Men."  "Melk"
is Syriac means "king."

         Gradually  their Syrian and Coptic customs slipped into disuse and
they adopted over a long period of time the usages of Byzantium, which they
keep  to the present day.   There are about half a million Melkites,  their
chief bishop is the Patriarch of Antioch, and he lives at Damascus.   There
are nearly 100,000  in the United States in at least 27 parishes, and there
is a seminary in Methuen, Massachussetts, and have their own diocese in the
United States with a bishop who lives near Boston.

                               THE ARMENIANS

         The  Armenians are the first people to have embraced  Christianity
as a nation in its entirety.   They developed,  under the guidance of Saint
Gregory the Illuminator, a rite entirely their own, the origins of which go
back to the ancient Antiochene and Byzantine sources as they existed  prior
to  the  Great councils.   Eventually,  the Armenians also sided  with  the
Monophysites and left the Church after Chalcedon in 451.   Many returned to
unity,  however, and they now number nearly a quarter of a million.   Their
chief  bishop  is  the Patriarch of Cilicia,  who lives at  Beirut.    Non-
Catholic Armenians are often called Gregorian Armenians, after St.  Gregory
the  Illuminator  who brought  Christianity to their country in  the  early
fourth  century.   There is a patriarch currently at Etchmiazin  in  Soviet
Armenia,   and  Armenian Christians,  Catholic and  Monophysite  alike  are
scattered throughout the Near East and also in the United States.

                               THE MARONITES

         The  Maronites are a group of Syrian Christians who  retired  into
the  mountains  of the Lebanon for better protection against political  and
religious  enemies.    Anyone  who  is currently  aware  of  the  religious
situation  in  Lebanon today can better understand the reasons  for  it  as
eminently  reasonable.    When  they  ran into  the  Crusaders  (or,   more
accurately,   when the Crusaders ran into them)  in the 12th century,  they
immediately proclaimed their unity with the Catholic Church, and they still
pride  themselves  to  this day that they  have  never  formally  separated
themselves from it.  They have adopted some features of the Roman rite from
the  Crusaders,  and are the only Eastern Rite Catholic Church that has  no
non-Catholic  counterpart,  i.e.,  there *are*  no Orthodox or  Monophysite
Maronites.  The only Maronites are all of them Catholics.

         They follow the Syrian rite, and their chief bishop is also called
the  Patriarch  of Antioch.   He lives at Bekerkeh in  the  Lebanon.    The
Maronites  number  about  three-quarters of a million  and  are  very  well
represented in the United States,  where they have over 100,000 members and
a diocese of fifty parishes or more, and a bishop of their own.

                             (to be continued)

Note 13 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (11341
characters).

13 (of 18) AVATAR June  7, 1988 at 23:17 Eastern (11273 characters)


        I  broke last message at this point because I intended to  proceed
next  to  the Byzantine Rite,  which will be treated separately  from  the
others for two reasons:  a) I  know more about it than I do the others and
b)  the rite itself is,  next to the Roman Rite (careful here!  The "Roman
Rite"  is *not* the same as "The Latin Rite."  There *is* no "Latin Rite,"
per se, though there *are* "Latin Rite(S)") the second largest rite in the
Catholic  Church.    That  caution  having been  added,   let  me  proceed
forthwith.

                            THE BYZANTINE RITE

         The  two  largest (in terms of members)  rites  in  the  Catholic
Church  are the Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rite.   All of Western Europe
has  traditionally  been the jurisdictional province of the  Patriarch  of
Rome,   and Western Europe has traditionally practiced some Latin Rite  or
another  more or less similar to that of Rome itself,  though by no  means
always identical, even in the current day.

        I  should add here for those who may have missed earlier  postings
that the great bulk of what is done by the Vatican Curia is done, not as a
matter  of Catholic affairs,  but more properly as of the affairs  of  the
Patriarchate of Rome.   Most, by far,  of the decisions of the Holy Father
are made,  not in his capacity as Pope, i.e.,  the Pastor of the Universal
Church,   but in his capacity as the Patriarch of Rome,  Patriarch of  the
West.

        There  have  been  erroneous  references made  for  years  to  the
significance  of the "Triple Tiara"  with which the Pope is crowned at his
coronation.   The Triple Tiara quite simply stands for the three functions
filled  by  the person of the Holy Father,  the three "hats"  he  wears  -
literally, not figuratively.   The first is that he is the Bishop of Rome.
He  does not personally involve himself greatly in the day-to-day  affairs
of the Diocese of Rome, and has a consecrated bishop who serves him as his
Vicar General and deals with the daily affairs of the diocese,  though you
can  be sure the Pope takes the responsibility for that  charge  seriously
indeed.  He neglects none of it, I'm told, and only the day-to-day routine
matters are delegated.   The second 'hat'  is his role as the Patriarch of
the  West,   the Patriarch of Rome where he is,  as the  other  Ecumenical
Patriarchs  of Antioch,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem and Constantinople insist,
co-equal to them in dignity and in jurisdiction.  And the third 'hat', the
third band on the Triple Crown, is his capacity as Pope, in which capacity
he *has*  no 'rite,'  and is equally the pastor of all Catholics,  lay and
cleric,   of whatsoever rite,  wheresoever in the world.   It is  in  that
capacity,  the capacity of Pope,  that John Paul II is as much a Byzantine
Catholic  as  I am.   I  said that he "has no rite,"  but that's  strictly
speaking inaccurate.  As Pope, he belongs to all rites equally.

        You can still see in living practice some of the older Latin Rites
in remnant among the old monastic orders like the Dominicans,  Carmelites,
Cistercians and Carthusians.   There are also still living rites in cities
like  Milan  in  Italy,  Lyons in France,  Toledo in Spain  and  Braga  in
Portugal.  The Roman Rite (as opposed to these other Latin rites) has been
carried round the world by the various missionaries to most of the nations
of the world in one century or another.

        The  Byzantine  rite,  however,  was followed by  those  who  fell
beneath the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,  Byzantium
if  you  will.    There has been some all-too-serious  speculation  in  my
hearing  about  why  it was that the Roman Rite was  the  object  of  such
intense  missionary activity while the "passive and mystical East"   seems
not  to have had such a missionary zeal,  but upon examination it  doesn't
hold  up  and reveals more about the historical ignorance of  the  speaker
than  the history warrants.   Greek missionaries converted all of  Eastern
Europe  to  a point quite far WEST of Berlin and Vienna - which  was  lost
back  to the West in the "drang nach osten"  that began to manifest itself
under the successors to Charlemagne.  The great saints Cyril and Methodius
converted  many of the Slavs and translated both the Greek liturgy and the
Scriptures into the Slavic tongue.   This year, in fact,  is the millenial
anniversary of the conversion to Christianity of Kievan Rus' -  an event I
would  suggest  bears  some  significant  evidence  of  quite  a  *strong*
missionary  spirit.    My  own  diocese celebrated  that  thousandth  year
anniversary  a hundred and twenty years ago,  and that fact  is  currently
causing  some strain between the Byzantine Rite (Ruthenian usage)  and the
Ukrainian  and Russian usages of the Byzantine Rite,  since they wish  our
bishops  to  join  with them in that celebration (which  we're  more  than
willing  to  do)   but find themselves annoyed when we tell them  that  we
celebrated *ours*  a hundred and twenty years ago.   Much of what you will
see  concerning  that  conversion will be propaganda - since at  the  time
there was no such thing as Russia at all.  Nor, for that matter, was there
a Ukraine - not in the sense in which the term is used currently.

        In 988  Kievan Rus'  was an essentially Varangian state,  a  Grand
Duchy.    Moscow  was an insignificant principality in the Suzdal  region,
still  existing  in  the  shadow of an impressive  civilization  based  on
Novgorod.   Russia was 500 years away from becoming an *existent*  entity,
much less an independent one.  Russia's existence as a state would have to
wait  for  the liberating influences of Ivan IV and Alexander Nevsky,   at
which  point in addition to freeing the Slavs of Moscow from the yokes  of
the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of Poland and Poland/Lithuania,   the
Slavs  were  'freed'  as well from the suzerainty of the other Slav  Grand
Duchies.    But  you're unlikely to hear much of that this year.   Not  of
Moscow has its way.

        St.  Cyril composed an alphabet for the Slavs which is the  parent
of  the  current Russian,  Ukrainian,  Serbian and Bulgarian  orthography.
That  alphabet  is still called the "Cyrillic,"  though there is  an  even
older attempt by him known as "Glagolithic."

        Even  though  the Polish,  Czech,  Slovenian,  most of Slovak  and
Croatian people now belong to the Roman Rite,  originally they did not and
were  subducted  under the authority of German bishops as the  Carolingian
military began to subdue these areas by the power of the sword.  The other
Great Slav (as opposed to 'Lesser Slav')  nations - Russians,  Ukrainians,
Serbs  and Bulgars - belong to the Byzantine Rite.   Most Romanians,  some
Albanians and many Hungarians are also members of the Byzantine Rite,   as
well as many of the people of Southern Italy and Sicily.

        The  majority  of  those who practice the  Byzantine  Rite  (often
popularly called "Greek Catholics"  or "Greek Rite")  are *not*,  in fact,
Greek at all,  but Slavs.   The Slavic language is still maintained in use
within  the  liturgy - even here in my own parish - because it is still  a
'vernacular'  language within the liturgical meaning of the term.   People
still  speak it in their homes.   The Romanians and Hungarians do not  use
Slavonic, however, but their own languages,  and those of Italy and Sicily
use Greek rather than Slavonic, Italian *or* Latin.  The use of English is
widespread in the United States in all usages of the Byzantine Rite.

                                ----------

        In the year 1054,  a schism was precipitated between the Patriarch
of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome.  Eventually the major portion
of the Eastern Church followed the Patriarch of Constantinople.  The story
is a sordid one,  full of errors and uncharity enough to satisfy even  the
most rabid bigot of either side, one of politics, mutual misunderstandings
(often deliberate)  and the clash of very powerful personalities.   "A sad
chapter in the history of the Church" would be a gross understatement.

        The  Byzantine Catholics of Southern Italy were *never*  separated
from the Church,  nor were small groups in each nation.   In Russia,   for
example,   a   tiny  group of some few thousands  of  families  maintained
themselves  as "Old Catholics,"  a  name which should not be confused with
the "Old Catholics" of the United States,  who drifted away in the wake of
Vatican  I.    Groups of Christians from all the other nations of  Eastern
Europe  eventually  returned to union with the Catholic Church  and  today
there  exist  the  great bodies of Ukrainian,   Ruthenian,   Rumanian  and
Hungarian  Catholics of the Byzantine Rite,  with smaller groups of Greeks
(*real*   "Greek  Catholics"!)   and Russians (among whom are  those  "Old
Catholics"  I mentioned,  whose number included my family).   Those not in
union  with the Catholic Church are customarily called  "Orthodox"   while
those united to the Catholic Church are called "Eastern Catholics," or one
of   the  other  sub-denominators  such  as   "Ruthenian,"    "Ukrainian,"
"Hungarian," and so on.

        You will often hear the term "Uniates."   An improper term, to say
the least - and an insulting one as well.   I  am no more "uniate"  and no
less so than any of the Popes who have ever lived,  or any other member of
the Catholic Church.   All Catholics are, in fact, "Uniate" in that we are
all "in union"  with the Catholic Church and, *because*  of that fact,  in
union as well with each other.   The term "Uniate"  was originally used as
an epithet of opprobrium by the enemies of reunion,  and still is.   It is
similar  both  in  usage and in intent to the term "Papist"   as  used  in
England during the Reformation.

        There is not a Catholic-Greek parish in the United States,  nor an
Italo-Greek one.   There are a number of Rumanian parishes,  together with
their priests and bishop,  numbering perhaps 20,000,  and there are  small
Russian parishes in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

        At  one  time ALL the Eastern Catholics in the United States  fell
under  the local Roman jurisdiction,  but that has not been the case  some
years since.   Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Melkites, Maronites, Armenians, and
Russians  each have their own ordinaries now.  Ukrainian Catholics have  a
Metropolitan Archdiocese and four dioceses (including the Archdiocese) and
the  same  holds for the Ruthenians.   These dioceses embrace  the  entire
United  States.    Canada has its own jurisdictions  separately  from  the
United States,  and once again the jurisdictions embrace the entire nation
and are entirely independent of local Roman authority.

        The large majority, however, of Russians and Greeks, are Orthodox,
and are NOT in union with the Catholic Church.  There are several millions
of Orthodox in the United States,  with several different and  overlapping
jurisdictions, separated and organized along the lines of national origin:
Russian,   Greek,   Syrian,  Rumanian,  Albanian,   Ukrainian,   Armenian,
Chaldaean, etc.

                           Next: Eastern Worship

Note 14 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (12410
characters).

14 (of 18) AVATAR Aug. 20, 1988 at 18:08 Eastern (12342 characters)

                                EASTERN WORSHIP

        Obviously,  a  short,  general review of this nature simply cannot
    provide  anything at all like a full picture of the Divine Liturgy  in
    each  of  the rites - a work like that far exceeds the scope  of  this
    series  of  micro-snapshots.   Since the Byzantine rite is by far  and
    away the  most  widespread  among both  Eastern  Catholics and Eastern
    Orthodox  Christians,   I'll confine myself to the description of  the
    more salient features  of the Byzantine Rite  itself.    Many  of  the
    features will certainly be found in other rites as well,  so it is not
    intended to be implied  or inferred that any or all of these  features
    are unique to the Byzantine Rite;  there are times, in fact,  when the
    Eastern  Rite  usage  in question will follow the  Roman  usage  quite
    closely.  As, I'm sure you're already aware,  many of the 'new'  Roman
    usages have "borrowed" heavily from the East.

                             The Sign of the Cross

        Perhaps  the most immediately striking difference between East and
    West  is  the  traditional  form of making  the  Sign  of  the  Cross.
    Catholics  and Orthodox do so a great deal of the time;  it is not the
    custom  in  other  Christian denominations.    Among  most  Protestant
    denominations  it would be shunned as a form of 'papism,'  -  not that
    the  Sign of the Cross is to be abhorred,  I'm sure,  but simply as  a
    reaction to the 'Romanism'  of the practice.  Odd, though,  in view of
    the  fact that the practice is anything *but*  Roman,   and  virtually
    universal  through  all  the  Christian  denominations  *except*   the
    Protestant ones.  And not even among all of them, for that matter.

        Among  the  Roman  Rite Catholics,  the hand  most  first  to  the
    forehead,  then to the sternum,  then to the left shoulder and then to
    the  right.   I  have over the years had my share of fun asking people
    WHY  they  go  to  the left shoulder first,   rather  than  the  right
    (indicating  as  well  that  they're  making the  Sign  of  the  Cross
    backwards; that usually gets a fairly explosive reaction) and offering
    to explain why I go to the RIGHT shoulder first,  if they can tell  me
    why  they  go to the left first.   Nobody has ever yet  explained  it,
    though  the  reason is simple.   The progressions to  shoulders  isn't
    significant for Romans, while the movement from head to sternum IS: it
    signifies  that the Son is descended from the Father.   That  is  also
    true of the Eastern form of signing oneself - i.e., head to sternum to
    signify  the same,  but to the RIGHT shoulder first,  rather than  the
    left,   to  signify  that the Son now sits at the right  hand  of  the
    Father,  in addition to his generation from the Father.  And of course
    the Holy Spirit to complete the Trinitarian formula.

        In  addition,  Roman Rite Catholics use the entire hand,   fingers
    together, to make the movement,  signifying the oneness, the unity, of
    God in the Trinity.    Eastern  Christians  pull  together  the thumb,
    forefinger  and middle finger to signify faith in the Trinity,   while
    the remaining two fingers,  ring finger and little finger,  are pulled
    together curled into the palm of the hand to indicate a belief in  the
    two  natures  of  Christ,   human and divine.   There is a  script  of
    meaning/significance to *everything* that is done.   Signs and symbols
    are vital to Eastern Christianity,  even more so than to the Romans  -
    particularly when one gets to the REAL symbols, the Sacraments.

        The  gesture  of signing oneself is ubiquitous  among  Easterners.
    One  signs oneself at virtually any occasion or at any  opportunity  -
    often  simply  because one happens to become aware of the Presence  of
    God  at an odd moment during the day because one happens to  think  of
    Him.    It is usually made by everyone present at any mention  of  the
    Trinity,  or any Person of the Trinity.   During the Divine Liturgy as
    well.  It is also made, most particularly during worship services,  in
    conjunction with a profound bow (rather than the Roman genuflection) -
    the  degree  of  profundity  reflective as much of the  piety  of  the
    worshiper as of the physique and physical condition.

        During  the Divine Liturgy the priest will bless the  congregation
    six  times with his hand.   In giving a blessing the priest will  hold
    his hand such that,  if viewed from the front,  side on,  the ritually
    prescribed  position  will  indicate the Greek letters  IC  XC  -  the
    traditional Greek abbreviation (first and last letters)  of the  Words
    Iesus Christos.   The ritual position is as follows:  the index finger
    points straight  up  to form the I,  the edge of the  hand  toward the
    people,  the middle and little fingers curve to form the C,  while the
    thumb and ring fingers cross to form the X.  The symbolism, of course,
    is  meant  to indicate that it is not the priest who is doing  any  of
    these things - but Christ Himself, personally, who is doing them while
    the priest acts "in persona Christi"  - i.e., that it is *Christ*  who
    is  acting,  in a sense analogous to that of St.  Paul when he said "I
    live,  now, not I, but it is Christ who lives in me."   It is intended
    to  make it absolutely clear that all blessings flow from Christ - not
    from the priest.

                                 The Vestments

        The  Byzantine  vestments  resemble  the  pre-Vatican   Tridentine
    vestments to a great degree.   The stole is long - and joined together
    in the front (unlike the Roman which is normally NOT,  though there is
    no prohibition on joining the front);  the cincture is a band of cloth
    which  matches  the other garments;  a  cuff on each wrist;   and  the
    chasuble  resembles a Roman cope more than it does the Roman  chasuble
    itself,  with the front solid across the chest and the lower front cut
    away.  Both the Roman and Byzantine chasubles had the same origin: the
    original chasuble fell to the floor on both sides.   In the West,  the
    sides  were  gradually  cut away to facilitate the  movements  of  the
    priest at the Altar;  in the East the lower front was cut away for the
    same purpose.

                          The Liturgical Color Scheme

        Strictly  speaking,  there is no strict sequence of colors in  the
    Byzantine Rites.   There is a traditional rule that is stated  thusly:
    'bright'  colors for feast days and sundays; 'dark' colors for days of
    fast or mourning.   Apart from that,  one is pretty much on one's own.
    We have adopted the tradition in the U.S. of using blue vestments, for
    example, on feast days or during devotions to the Blessed Virgin;  the
    West doesn't use blue in its liturgical color scheme at all.

        In  ancient  times  the rule was carried out by using  mostly  two
    colors; white, and dark red.  These are still the most frequently used
    colors in the Byzantine Rites, however, light blue, yellow, gold, gold
    and  pink,  and several other combinations are often used in place  of
    white.  Dark blue, green, purple and violet are often used in place of
    red.  Sometimes also black.

        The  Maronites  and Malabarese have adopted Roman vestments;   the
    Armenians and Chaldaeans  use a chasuble which is quite like  a  Roman
    cope  without the hood.   The Armenians also wear a  richly-ornamented
    collar  which  stands  up  stiffly on the  shoulders  over  the  other
    vestments.

                                    Incense

        Eastern  Christians make a vastly greater use of incense than  the
    Roman  Rite.   Before each important part of the Divine Liturgy,   the
    altar,  sanctuary,  icons,  church building and people are all blessed
    with incense in preparation for the next stage of the ceremony.

                             Liturgical Languages

        Eastern  Christians use various languages - actually,  we can  use
    any language with which we're familiar.  Our tradition has always been
    to  use the 'vernacular'  language - such that one of  my  classmates,
    Father Artim,  stationed in Anchorage, Alaska, has for many years used
    American  Eskimo (Aleut)  in the Divine Liturgy.   The "old  language"
    among  the people of my diocese is Old Slavonic,  the mother tongue to
    all  the  Slavic  languages,   including  modern  Polish,   Bulgarian,
    Macedonian,  Serbian,  Croatian,  Montenegrin,  Slovenian,  Ruthenian,
    Ukrainian,  Russian, Polish, Byelorussian and whatnot.  Still, the Old
    Slavonic  is  far,  far closer to each of those languages than  modern
    Romance languages are to their mother Latin.   Anyone who  understands
    *any*   of these modern Slavic languages can still understand the  Old
    Slavonic,  hence, for all practical purposes, it is still a vernacular
    language.   It is still spoken and understood on a daily basis,   even
    here in the United States.

        The  Maronites and Chaldaeans use Syriac for the Anaphora  (Canon)
    of  their  Liturgy.   Syriac is almost the same language  as  Aramaic,
    which  was  spoken  by  Our Lord while he lived on earth  -  and there
    remains  in Syria to this day a village which,  it is thought,   still
    speaks the same Aramaic as did Our Lord.  It is related to the ancient
    Hebrew and Aramaic is nearly a dead language.

        The pure Syrian, the Malabar and Malankara rites, also use Syriac.

        Melkites  generally celebrate the Liturgy in Arabic,   the  spoken
    language  of most of the countries of the Near East.   They  use  some
    Greek  wherever  they wish,  and on occasion will still celebrate  the
    entire Liturgy in the original Greek.

        The   Armenians  use  an  ancient  classical  form  of   Armenian.
    Hungarians  and  Rumanians  each celebrate in their own  languages  as
    well.  Exclusively.

        The  Maronites and Chaldaeans have introduced the custom of  using
    their  vernacular Arabic instead of ancient Syriac for the Liturgy  of
    the  Catechumens,  or at least for the reading of the lessons and  the
    Gospels  during  the  Liturgy  of  the Word.   In nearly  all  of  the
    Byzantine  churches  in America,  one now hears the  lessons  and  the
    entire Liturgy in English instead of the old languages.   Old Slavonic
    is  quickly  becoming  an  infrequently-used language  in  the  United
    States.

                                 The Eucharist

        In  the  Byzantine Rite,  the Holy Eucharist is administered under
    both  species  with a golden spoon that never touches  the  recipient.
    Leavened bread,  rather than unleavened, because the consecrated bread
    is  soaked  in the consecrated wine - unleavened bread would  tend  to
    disintegrate.

        At  Communion  time,  the priest will receive each of the  species
    separately;   he  will  then pour the hosts from the  paten  into  the
    chalice; each communicant will receive one of the cubes of consecrated
    Bread  moistened with the Precious Blood.   If the head is held  back,
    and the mouth opened comfortably wide,  without extending the  tongue,
    the  tongue  being left carefully flat in the mouth,  the host can  be
    tipped  into  the  mouth simply by turning the spoon  over  above  the
    communicant's mouth, without touching lips, teeth or tongue.

        Is  it  permissible  for  Roman  Rite  Catholics  to  receive Holy
    Communion according to the Byzantine Rite?  Yes, says Canon 866 of the
    old Code of Canon Law.  You may receive Holy Communion in *any* rite -
    "for the sake of piety."   One may receive Holy Communion even at  the
    hands  of  an Orthodox priest,  provided there is no  Catholic  priest
    available, though it is not expected to be done as a matter of general
    practice lest the impression be left that there is no difference,  and
    that a unity exists which does not truly do so.

                      Next: THE BYZANTINE DIVINE LITURGY

Note 15 (of 18) by ARCHIVES on Dec. 22, 1991 at 22:45 Eastern (10011
characters).

15 (of 18) AVATAR Jan.  8, 1989 at 18:46 Eastern (9944 characters)

                    DIVINE WORSHIP IN THE BYZANTINE RITE

                          The Rite of Preparation

         The divine Liturgy,  called "The Mass"  in the Roman Rite,  begins
with  the preparation of the bread and wine by the priest at a small  altar
to  the  left  of the main altar,  called the  Altar  of  Preparation,   or
"Proskomedia"  in slavic languages.  The bread and wine,  once prepared for
the  Liturgy  are  called the "holy gifts,"  and referred to as  such  ever
after.

         There is a specified pattern to the preparation.   The priest will
arrange  the  cubes  of bread (leavened bread,  by the way  -  not  at  all
resembling the flat,  thin unleavened bread of the West)  on the paten in a
prescribed  order.    The  large host will be placed in  the  center,   and
represents Our Lord;  a small host,  triangular in shape,  is placed to the
immediate left (as you face it)  of the large host,  in honor of Our  Lady;
nine small ones are placed to the immediate right of the large host, ranked
three by three, in honor of the various classes of saints - and they recall
by  their  number the nine choirs of angels.   Then two horizontal rows  of
hosts  below  the large host are placed to commemorate both the living  and
the  dead.   So,  if the priest wishes to make a special  commemoration  of
someone  at the Liturgy he will place a small particle on the paten with  a
short prayer:  "Remember, O Lord, Your servant (name))   If the party to be
remembered is deceased, he will say, "Be mindful, O Lord,  of your departed
servant  (name)"   -   to my mind a strikingly  beautiful  feature  of  the
Byzantine  Rite,   amking physically present in the  Liturgy  each  special
memento.

        Once  the  gifts have been prepared and covered  with  veils,   the
priest  will  incense them and say a prayer of offering over  them.    This
private beginning of the Liturgy at the side altar commemorates the Infancy
and the Hidden Life of Our Lord.

                               Public Liturgy

         The  celebrant will then go to the High Altar to begin the  public
liturgy  and  this  recalls  the beginning of Our  Lord's  public  life  of
preaching and teaching and prayer.   The priest will begin by incensing the
altar,   sanctuary  and people - all those things sacred to  the  Lord  and
consecrated to His Service.   A  kind of sanctification to prepare them  to
assist at the sacred service.

                              The Great Litany


         The  Great Litany (often called the "Mirnaja Jektenia - the Litany
of Peace"  because of its beginning words:  "In peace,  let us pray to  the
Lord...")   is now sung,  containing many general petitions for the good of
mankind generally - for peace,  for the Church,  for the Church's hierarchy
and rulers, for travelers, for the sick, the suffering, the imprisoned, for
good weather,  for the salvation of our souls.  The priest keeps calling on
the faithful to pray for various intentions,  and the answer of the  people
(and/or  the  choir)   is always the same:   "Hospody  Pomiluj/Lord,   have
mercy/Kyrie Eleison."

         There  is for Easterners something especially beautiful about this
form of litany prayer.  Each petition is made with the general plea: "Lord,
have mercy."  We do not presume to tell God what to do nor how to do it; in
each  need we trust His Merciful Providence;  the best of us are  but  poor
sinners before the Throne of His Mercy.  The Great Litany,  as well as  all
the other small litanies during theLiturgy, ends with the touching formula:
"Having commemorated our most holy,  most pure,  most blessed and  glorious
Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, together with all the Saints,
let  us commend o