Would revisions to other services such as Presanctified, Vespers, Matins, Holy Week, Molebens, Parastas, Weddings, etc. done by the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh sui juris have to be approved by Rome before being released as well?

Just wondering...

Anyone? Clergy? Can someone answer this?

Also, what about the Triodion and Menaion??? Are the Uniontown translations that are so often used, "official?" Were they approved by Rome or are they "temporary usage" books?

According to the CCEO and the Litrugical Instruction the Metropolitan with the Council of Hierarchs is competent to legisalte liturgical matters for the Metropolia after sending the texts to Rome for its recognitio which is something different than approval.

The Basilian Books are not official but since they were all that we had for so long they were the unofficial standard as were many of Msgr. Levkulic's booklets.

Fr. Deacon Lance

1. The Revised Divine Liturgy does not provide for the “faithful protection and accurate observance of the [Ruthenian] rite."

2. The revisions enacted have been shown to not be those that have come about through organic progress.

3. The changes most certainly do not keep in mind the “mutual goodwill and unity of Christians” as they introduce disunity in official liturgical books where there was once unity. Even just considering the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches’ resolution from last September supporting the official books of the Ruthenian recension demonstrates that this canon has not been properly adhered to.

I am sure that the hierarchs are well-intentioned and believe themselves to have followed the Vatican directives. It is also evident from a review of the Vatican documents that they have not done so.

So let me get this straight. Any revision or translation needs to be sent to Rome for it's "recognitio?"

I've looked at my copy of the old pew book and it does not have an impritmatur or nihil obstat. Neither does the menaion that I have published by the Sisters of St. Basil, although the title page says "Compiled and adapted from approved sources," though I'm not sure how this was since they were new translations done for the Sisters. So none of these were "approved" but were used for years?

The new pew book does not either, though there is a letter in the foward saying it's "approved for use," along with the bishops' names, but no date or protocol number from Rome.

The Presanctified Liturgy book used currently in Passaic does have a nihil obstat and imprimatur. Does anyone know if it was sent to Rome for review?

John,

The Liturgikon was sent for the recognitio, the Pew Book was not nor does it need to be as I understand it. The Liturgikon carries the protocol# 99/2001, dated 3/31/2001

Of course the 2006 Liturgikon is the first official tranlation by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission since the CCEO was promulgated. I am unsure what the procedure was before that, obviously some Roman input was sought as the 1965 Liturgikon carries the protocol# 380/62, dated 12/10/1964

The Basilian Books drew material from the Byzantine Franciscan 2 Volume Horologion published in 1967/1968. The Basilian Books were published as follows: Vespers 1982 reprinted 1987, Festal Menaion 1985, Pentecostarion 1986, Matins 1989, Triodion 1995. So only the Triodion was published after the CCEO was promulgated. So yes they were used without the recognitio but with the exception of the Triodion they were published before this was required.

On the otherhand, Byzantine Daily Worship by Archbishop Joseph Raya (1st printing 1969) carries his own Imprimatur and a letter from Patriarch Maximos V ordering it to be the only translation used by English-speaking Melkites. Nothing from Rome in there.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

You are correct in the historical details you post.

Simply put, despite the best of intentions Canon 40 §1 and a whole lot of other requirements given from Vatican II to the Liturgical Instruction were not kept. The books containing the Revised Liturgy are neither complete nor accurate. The Revised Liturgies should be rescinded and editions that are 100% faithful to our Ruthenian Liturgical Tradition (as documented in the official books) should be promulgated.

As Catholics we have the right to appeal to Rome, especially in cases where the bishops are in error. I am praying that many will do so and that Rome will step in and correct the errors of our bishops.

John

John,

I agree fully that the faithful have the right to appeal. My worry is that if Rome declines to intervene, which I deem to be likley, the bad feelings shown so far will continue.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Bad feelings are not something that anyone wants to see.

But as you may know Father Deacon, bad feelings are not the opposite of love. Apathy is the opposite of love. And let me tell you, I know many Byzantine Catholics who, because of this new liturgy, have grown apathetic and wouldn't 'waste their time' (their words not mine) on appealing the new liturgy. Instead they just going to the UGCC or Orthodox Church without a complaint or wimper. Furthermore, many of these people are the younger people of our Eparchy with kids, which is a demographic that we desperately need. The powers that be may wish that all the fuss and protests over this will just go away. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Monomakh

Well, we can't have a group of Old Believers, since we apparently never did the Liturgy correctly to begin with.

The Administrator wrote:

"1. The Revised Divine Liturgy does not provide for the “faithful protection and accurate observance of the [Ruthenian] rite."

2. The revisions enacted have been shown to not be those that have come about through organic progress.

3. The changes most certainly do not keep in mind the “mutual goodwill and unity of Christians” as they introduce disunity in official liturgical books where there was once unity. Even just considering the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches’ resolution from last September supporting the official books of the Ruthenian recension demonstrates that this canon has not been properly adhered to.

I am sure that the hierarchs are well-intentioned and believe themselves to have followed the Vatican directives. It is also evident from a review of the Vatican documents that they have not done so."

I apologize for responding, since dialogue on these issues is impossible because of the presumptions that are being made. However, since the Liturgy has been promulgated, I will state one more time for the beneift of the readers the following rebuttal:

1. This is the Administrator's private opinion, based on the presumption that the only fidelity to the "Ruthenian tradition" is an absolute literal fidelity to the 1941 Liturgicon. The Oriental Congregation, which gave us the 1941 Liturgicon, disagrees, the Council of Hierarchs disagrees, and any reasonable reading of liturgical history will reveal vast areas of development.

2. "Have been shown" ??? By whom??? Most certainly the restoration of the presbyteral office/prayers is an organic development, a development which has been in place for over a century, and which has been recommended by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Church of Greece.

3. There is nothing - I repeat, nothing - in the new liturgicon that has not been done in an Orthodox Church. There is nothing that has not been proposed by some Orthodox Church. In fact, some of the most supportive statements on the Liturgy that I have received have been from Orthodox officials and published proposals by Orthodox scholars.

That "the Vatican" that is, the Oriental Congregation has "recognized" this liturgicon is what is evident and directly to the point.

As mentioned, I make this statement only for the benefit of the Byzantine Forum readers.

Personally, I find the Administrator's protestations that we are "well-intentioned" but wrong to be rather patronizing. The Liturgy has been my life-long study and I am neither stupid nor ignorant.

Fr. David

Thank you, Fr. David. As is very evident from your corpus of scholarly work, you are indeed neither stupid nor ignorant. In fact, you have demonstrated great knowledge combined with deep spiritual insight and have given the Church tremendous blessings. I thank you on behalf of all of the faithful whose lives have been so enriched by your ministry. I also applaud your steadfastness in the face of personal attacks and accusations -- you continue to speak the truth in love. May God reward you.

Fr John (Mack)

This is great news that you want to follow even the smallest minority of Orthodox Churches. The majority would even be better to follow then.

Will three verse antiphons and the little litanies be permitted then?

Also, since we are on an Orthodox kick, what time will Vespers be today at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh?
Will it be the same time next week, I'm going to be in the Pittsburgh area and would like to attend?

Monomakh

Father David writes that:

(my italics)

It's a big world, and Eastern Orthodoxy is a large Christian group, so I have no special reason to doubt the general truth of Father David's statement. Whether this new liturgicon is in any way representative of the consensus of Eastern Orthodoxy is another matter.

To my way of thinking, the chief problem lies, not so much in what has been added (which does not seem to be very much) as what is lacking and what has actually been removed.

I have never described Father David as being either stupid or ignorant - he is neither of those things. In areas where we disagree, that is likelier to arise from a different set of priorities rather than because either one of us might be a gibbering idiot.

My reading of liturgical history - even of "contemporary liturgical history", if I may allow myself what looks like an oxymoron (but isn't - what happened sixty seconds ago is now history but is still contemporary for a while) - tells me that the simple act of promulgation is no guarantee of acceptance, and still less does it guarantee whole-hearted acceptance.

Right now, I am eagerly awaiting volume VI of Father Archimandrite Robert Taft's multi-volume historical study of the Divine Liturgy, which I am told is now at the press. Knowing the speed at which Rome often works, that probably means that we may see the book in 2008, but it will be worth waiting for.

Fr. Serge

I thank Father David for his post.


I agree with Father David that this is my opinion. But I do have validation that it is a worthy one, one shared by many (as I have posted previously). Last September the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church made the following statement:

4. [We resolve] to inform the clergy and faithful of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) that the following documents concerning Divine Services, which were presented to the Eastern Churches by the Roman Apostolic See, are obligatory for the whole Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

1) The typikon on Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy published in Rome in 1953;

2) The document of the Second Vatican Council on liturgical matters “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)”;

3) Instructions for applying the liturgical prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, published by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches on January 6, 1996.

I have taken the time to contact several members of clergy in the UGCC with questions about this statement. They have assured me that the directives from the Synod of Bishops is quite clear – the texts and rubrics given in the official books published by Rome for the Ruthenian recension are the standard and will remain the standard for the UGCC. There is no plan to alter the Liturgy away from the official books. I do not speak Ukrainian but I have been assured that the liturgical books that have been translated (and are being translated) from Church Slavonic into modern Ukrainian are intended to be exacting translations (for both the liturgical texts and the rubrics).

In Section 21 of the Liturgical Instruction it states: “In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.”

A review of the text and rubrics of the Revised Liturgy quickly reveals that it does not decrease the liturgical distance between us and Orthodoxy - it actually increases it. Further, it also ends the liturgical uniformity we share (on the official level) with other Byzantine Catholics! We can also see from Section 25 that this Revision does not fulfill the directive that “churches <sui iuris> of the same liturgical families that use the same language, sometimes within the same territory, normally requires that standard translations be used.” If anything, since we now have Liturgy that greatly differs from the common standard it makes working towards this goal more difficult.


Again, the praying of the presbyteral prayers may be on its way towards being an organic development. It is not yet common enough to qualify as an organic development (and there are no Orthodox or even other Byzantine Catholic Lituricons that mandate this). In fact, in some Orthodox Churches priests can be suspended for taking these prayer in the fashion now mandated by the Revised Liturgy. Father David recently quoted a recommendation by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. It “advised to read most of the Priestly Prayers of the Holy Eucharist with audible voice”. It did not mandate. If anything it supports the position I have consistently held since the beginning of these discussions - that priests be given the liberty to pray these prayers either quietly or audibly, thus creating the soil in which such a custom might develop organically. Clearly the Holy Synod is not doing more then creating such a condition for organic development. Our Church should not go further. I will also point out again the Liturgical Instruction only calls for “study” on this issue. It does not call for mandates to anticipate organic development.


I ask Father David again to please provide a listing of official Orthodox Liturgicons which abbreviate and revise the Divine Liturgy in this way.

There can be a huge difference between the officially promulgated Liturgicon by an Orthodox Church and what occurs in a specific local parish (there are still Orthodox parishes in certain jurisdiction that still do First Communion and May Crowning). Also, as noted above, the Liturgical Instruction makes clear that regarding Liturgy we are to “distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation [from the Orthodox Church].” When the Orthodox start modifying their official books then it will be time for us to modify the official books. Until then any change to the official books is premature and should not be done.


I have no doubt that what Father David states here is accurate. I also know that they approved the horrid Slovak Liturgicon a dozen or so years ago. It is possible that they did not give due attention to their review of that Slovak Liturgicon. It is also possible that they did not give due attention to the review of this Revised Liturgicon. We do know that they rescinded their approval for that Slovak edition. It is my hoping that the combined letters of those who are writing to express their disapproval will be cause for a re-examination the Revised Liturgicon, and that their approval for it will be rescinded.


Father David might be correct and I might be very wrong. Still, I have the right of appeal as does every Ruthenian Catholic.

I can assure Father David that I have never for one moment considered him to be either stupid or ignorant. I certainly have not written anything on this Forum that suggests I believe such a thing. In fact I have stated quite clearly on numerous occasions that I am sure that Father David has forgotten more about Liturgy then I will ever know. I continue to be puzzled that Father David seems to equate disagreement over issues with negative personal accusations. I submit for his consideration that it is possible for one man to admire and respect another man’s knowledge and intelligence and yet consider him wrong on some issues.

John