Bishop Basil and the development of the "Ruthenian Recension" editions. Bishop Basil participated in the meetings of the "Ruthenian" hierarchy convoked by Metropolitan Andrew. Sometimes he was there in person, and sometimes he sent a delegate instead. He was represented on the Inter-Eparchial Commission. At that time, Bishop Basil (as well as the bishops of Mukachiv, Preshov and Krizhevtsi) was using the 1905 "Ruthenian Missal" published in L'viv, and so were all of Bishop Basil's priests.

But Bishop Basil was simultaneously fighting the celibacy war and all the litigation which was part of that struggle; this will have taken up much of his time and attention. In the nineteen-thirties, he also had to cope with the Great Depression, which will have further complicated his life. The Roman Commission which actually produced the "Ruthenian Recension" did not get into its stride until 1938 - and in 1939 World War II began in Europe, making communications difficult. Bishop Basil's health was deteriorating. So all in all, I doubt that he was much involved in the "Ruthenian Recension" process after 1938, even though the petition of the hierarchy to Pius XI was in his name as well as the name of all the other hierarchs.

Since Bishop (later Metropolitan) Constantine of Philadelphia received copies of the books as they came off the press during the war - probably via the Holy See's diplomatic channels - I would assume that Bishop Basil also received them, but was in no position to do much about them because by that time the USA was in the throes of World War II (there was an acute need for service-books, but the Basilians in Canada managed to reprint the 1905 "Ruthenian Missal" - using, by the way, the graphic illustrations from Grigassy's pocket editions - and that proved a sufficient stop-gap during the war years and immediately afterwards. It was not until Bishop Daniel's administration that the Pittsburgh Exarchate turned its attention to the "Ruthenian Recension", and that I describe in my book.

It is possible, even likely, that there is more information in the archives in Pittsburgh, but those archives are not open to scholars.

Fr. Serge

I was thinking about this very thing the other day when I went looking for something on the mid-century struggle with Orthodoxy in Russka Dolina in Pittsburgh. There's nothing. It has even been expunged from the public record completely.

It might explain the avoidance on the part of some of our Ruthenian leadership to have much of anything at all to do with things Orthodox. I believe Bishop Andrew was involved in Russka Dolina? Apparently it made a significant impression on him from what I have heard word of mouth.

I am also interested to see if this note lasts any longer than my notes from yesterday.

Eli

Well, translation is more than just word to word as my translator friends always tell me...

...we always said "for our government and for all those in the service of our country" as far as I've noticed in my church. That would include all military services. (The word "army" doesn't include the "navy." "Armed forces," perhaps works. In American English, we still collectively refer to military people as "service members" or as "members of the service" so I figured that was okay.)

Translations are like that, though. A word that means one thing in this English speaking country might have come to mean something slightly different in another, as I learned when I was a student in England years ago.

All this time, I figured I was praying for those in the armed forces when they said "those in the service..."

And, as Fr. David Petras remarked somewhere, if the Army isn't "in the service of our country", we're all in a lot of trouble.

One thing that I like about the prayer for all those in service to our country is that it includes not only those in the armed forces but also those who serve our country in dangerous ways like the U.S. Coast Guard (not technically part of the U.S. Military as they are Dept. of Transportation and not Dept. of Defense) and our firefighters and police officers.

I think that we can become too focused on the minute and loose focus on things of greater importance.

Coasties are considered military and are covered by the UCMJ, but in peacetime, the Coast Guard does a lot of police and public safety type fuctions, as well as search and rescue. They also enforce environmental regs and perform valuable services like icebreaking and buoy tending. It's arguably the most versatile of the uniformed services.

However, the Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security. It's been a few years since that move occurred. Semper Paratus!

"if the Army isn't "in the service of our country", we're all in a lot of trouble."

Lead me not into temptation!

Can anyone give me a good reason why you should not pray for those in the service of your country ?

Surely all of them need your prayers - no matter what service they are giving ?

You're right - all these people unquestionably need our prayers. For that matter, so do people in the service of our enemies - and that's not a joke; in several places our Liturgy calls upon us to pray "for those who love us and for those who hate us".

Or as a popular Russian toast has it: Нашым Врагам - Царство Небесное!

Fr. Serge

To our foes - reign celestial!

Is that the sense?

Perhaps it's more like wishing Osama Bin Landen the earliest opportunity to greet his seventy virgins.

I'm not sure - but djs may have gotten it right. Anyway, the point is that it is forbidden to wish evil to anyone, but it is laudable to wish people good, so we wish the enemies the Kihgdom of Heaven (the implication being the sooner the better!). As I said, this is a toast, not a serious invocation.

Fr Serge

Thank you Father, It's been a while since anyone has thought - even with a disclaimer - that I've gotten something right.

You are most welcome!

Fr. Serge