You are missing the larger point here. Liturgically there is no difference between ‘Rusyn Catholic’ and ‘Rusyn Orthodox’. They are the same thing. The only difference one should see liturgically between a ‘Rusyn Catholic’ and ‘Rusyn Orthodox’ Church is the name of the bishop commemorated. So the real point here is that since 1646 we have slowly abandoned who we were for something else. Rome has been directing us to restore our own liturgical praxis for a long time now, especially with the directives to follow the official Ruthenian recension liturgical books. These books were created at the request of our own bishops (here and in Europe). Rome saw such a value in the Ruthenian liturgical praxis that she created a whole liturgical recension to make sure it could be restored and thrive. And ever since our bishops here in the United States have thwarted an authentic restoration back to what is ours. The 2007 RDL is just another example of prohibiting authentic Ruthenian Liturgy.

Consider that ‘Authentic Rusyn Church customs’ = 'Liturgical Orthodoxy'.

Look again at Luke 18:13. It is a historical account of what happened. It does not contain a command for anyone to do the same. At best, either custom (beating the breast or crossing one’s self while saying those words) is nothing more then a pious custom. On what theological basis do you raise it to a staple of Christian orthodoxy?

Can I get a quick rundown of what a divine liturgy following the recension would look like? What noticeable differences in clergy or congregational practices? Notable dissimilarities with current Orthodox practice either Slavic or Greek? Anything we would call a glaring latinization today? Etc. etc.

The "Rusyn Orthodox Church" is an "artificial insemination." If I recall correctly, Father Serge stated in a post that there were only two orthodox parishes in the Rusyn area prior to the Communists taking our churches and giving them to the Orthodox. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the Ruthenian Rescension, don't get me wrong; I don't have any objection to it being promulgated, but neither should regular celebration in its entirety be mandated. The opening and closing of the curtains should also be optional.

John,
I'm not missing the point; I'm MAKING the point much of the Divine Liturgy is scripture based; why, oh why, should we make an exception for the Communion Prayer?
If someone can give me documentation that the "beating of the breast" was forced on the Greek Catholics by the Latins, then I will completely drop this contention.
Is there any historical documentation as to when the Communion Prayer was added to the Divine Liturgy?

In reviewing "Ordo" on page 58 it states that the Communion Prayer is to be recited AFTER "Approach with the fear of God and with faith" and "Blessed is He who comes in the name...." Does anyone know when the change to the present order came into practice?

Fr. Deacon Paul

Father Serge does not remember saying that, and would not be likely to say that. There was certainly a significant Orthodox movement in the territories of the Uzhhorod and Preshov eparchies before the Communists turned up, and the first government of Czechoslovakia was, er, "generous" in allowing Greek-Catholics who wished to become Orthodox to retain their church buildings.

I am unaware of any religious body calling itself "The Rusyn Orthodox Church". If anyone knows of such a body, please give me the details.

"The Rusyn area" is a remarkably vague term. Does our poster include the Lemko region in Poland? Anyplace in the former Jugoslavia? Anyplace in Ukraine? Anyplace in Hungary? And so on.

The statement that the poster has no objection to the promulgation of the Ruthenian Recension (since it was promulgated decades ago, objections would be rather late in the day" but that regular celebrations in its entirety should not be mandated! I apologize for my intellectual inadequacies, but I am unable to reconcile these two elements of the same sentence with each other.

"The opening and closing of the curtains should also be optional". Why? And who is to have the option? But fear not; I am not engaging security personnel to visit parishes and enforce the curtain requirements.

Despite my above-mentioned intellectual inadequacies, might I be so bold as to suggest that the poster would do well to determine just what it is he wants, present it rationally, and be prepared to defend it?

Father Serge

To all,

I found something very interesting while reviewing "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy" by Nicholas Cabasilas, translated by JM Hussey and PA McMulty, published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1960.

Mind you, the author makes it very clear that he is speaking of the Divine Liturgy, NOT the Presanctified Liturgy! I quote,

The priest, having said the doxology aloud, comes to the altar of preparation, takes the offerings, and reverently holding them head-high departs. Carrying them thus, he goes to the altar, after walking in slow and solemn procession through the nave of the church. The faithful chant during this procession, KNEELING DOWN AND REVERENTLY AND DEVOUTLY, and praying that they may be remembered when the offering is made. The priest goes on, surrounded by candles and incense, until he comes to the altar........
During this ceremony we must prostrate ourselves before the priest and entreat him to remember us in the prayers which he is about to say. For there is no other means of supplication so powerful, so certain of acceptance, as that which takes place through this most holy sacrifice, which has freely cleansed us of our sins and iniquities. If any of those who prostrate themselves thus before the priest who is carrying the offerings adores them as if they were the Body and Blood of Christ, and prays to them as such, he is led into error, he is confusing this ceremony with that of "the entry of the Presanctified", not recognizing the differences between them. In this entry of the offerings, the gifts are not yet consecrated for the sacrifice; in the liturgy of the Presanctified they are consecrated and sanctified, the true Body and Blood of Christ.

So according to this 14th century Constantinopolitan theologian, kneeling and prostration during the Divine Liturgy is prescribed. Although the timing is different, it appears that the Greek Catholic Church is the upholder of ancient Tradition and the Orthodox Churches hold to a "Revised Divine Liturgy!!!"

Simply fascinating!!! Keep in mind that this is a publication of the respected St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Anyone hungry for crow??

Your brother,
Fr Deacon Paul

I was thinking of this book which was mentioned at a lecture recently on the DL and someone asked about kneeling on Sundays:

"A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy" by Nicholas Cabasilas, translated by JM Hussey and PA McMulty, published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1960.

Also the research conducted by Metr. Hilarion of the UOCC as he prepared his editions of the service books for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada. His papers are in the archives and also the books he brought from Poland.

Most of the difficulties presented and the illumination then provided are the result of loose reading and hasty, incorrect conclusions. For the immediate example, I would say it is the case that a custom is described rather than "prescribed"; he is not giving us a rubric from the liturgy. And what does it demonstrate by way of (widespread, actual) application? When was the last time you knelt for the great entrance as he recommends (as you note: "the timing is different")? So he's advocating a pious practice, a perceived custom, rather than providing a justification for a leap to "upholder of ancient Tradition."

I've read through the thread and the only ones I found who might actually deny kneeling (within your own context) as legitimate are those of your own description:



Your gripe about kneeling, in terms of what you're presently observing, seems to be with the RDL which has brought the issue to the fore via the People's Book, page 56, by noting: "The proper liturgical posture is to stand." -- and even it is hardly a command.

So I would say your invitation is lost on this thread's participants. Instead, invite those "vocal laity and clergy" that you mention to join you in eating that crow.

I was speaking to the time before 1646 when we were Orthodox.


Well, right now in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension is prohibited.


No, you’re missing the point. Luke 18:13 tells us what the tax collector did. It places no obligation upon us to do what he did. Repeat: It places no obligation upon us to do what he did. One may choose to beat one’s breast when saying those words but to do so is nothing more then pious custom. To not beat one’s breast when saying those words is in no way a violation of anything scriptural, and not doing it does not lessen the scriptural content (relationship) of the Divine Liturgy.


Regarding your quote from Cabasilas skip down to the next paragraph and consider the context: “During this ceremony we must prostrate ourselves before the priest and entreat him to remember us in the prayers which he is about to say. For there is no supplication so powerful, so certain of acceptance, as that which takes place through this most holy sacrifice….” Now paint the picture (and I’m using a bit from that text). The symbolism is the last manifestation of Christ, when he embarked on the journey into Jerusalem where He was to be sacrificed. As the priest (deacon) passes by you ask him to pray for you, and you prostrate yourself probably while he is saying: “Paul, may the Lord God remember you in His kingdom. May He grant your prayer for healing.” What was the reason for the prostration here? Contrast that to the reason for the prostration in some Churches during the epiclesis. Contrast that to the reason some kneel during the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist.(Why did they prostrate during the Great Entrance and not during the Anaphora?) What symbolism does standing, kneeling or sitting during the anaphora suggest? Everything to its time and place, understood properly. Including pious customs like this.

I included 'sitting' just above because I want to tease you! If you suggest that one must beat his breast like the tax collector during the Communion Prayer because it is a scriptural imperative then logic dictates that one must also find a scriptural imperative to sit during the Anaphora since that is what the disciples did at the Mystical Supper.

ajk,

So what are you saying, that Nicholas Cabasilas, whose uncle Nilus Cabasilas was archbishop of Thessalonica, wrote a commentary of some unauthentic Divine Liturgy? In Constantinople?

The forward by R.M. French wrote the the Commentary is "justly held in high esteem." Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

My words are being twisted here. Who's placing an "obligation" to beat his breast? The context of my original post suggest that it is NOT a latinization, that there is a scriptural reference. Of course this is a pious custom! Surely you didn't read it as a suggested rubric. I have related how beating of one's breast during the Communion Prayer is scriptural related and have seen no evidence that it is a latinization. Regarding my "disturbing" comment is a thought that a change from beating to crossing may have been implemented just to distance Eastern custom from Western custom.



In his commentary Cabisalis doesn't say that the people didn't kneel during the Anaphora/Consecration. He didn't say they did kneel either. That is an unknown to us. However, it does bring out that in the 14th century in the Byzantine Church kneeling was acceptable. This is original contention; that those who kneel shouldn't be branded as "Latinized." Don't read anything else into this. I'm just trying to be open minded; not unquestioningly vehement that kneeling during a Divine Liturgy is "wrong" because in ______ Church, they don't kneel and its not part of Eastern spirituality (or political correctness).

If you find where there is a prohibition on kneeling during the Divine Liturgy in "Ordo Celebrationis" or "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical the Liturgical Prescriptions" please give me the reference.

I don't have the exact number but certainly more than 2. Don't forget after the Austro-Hungarian Empire passed the Edict of Toleration, there were Rusyns who became Orthodox. The churches/chapels they built and their priests were under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Rusyn areas that were deemed to be part of Hungary.

Also in the inter-war period the ROCOR established a monastery in the area with monks who fled Pochaiv. Let us remember too in the inter-war period Czechoslovakia had its own Orthodox Church. I know there was at least one Orthodox women's monastery, but I do not know how many parishes exsisted.

Father Deacon Paul seems to have a large chip on his shoulder (in addition to the orarion), and is for whatever reason on a crusade to maintain - of all things - the practice of "beating one's breast", and the practice of "standing on the knees" during the Divine Liturgy, even on those days when kneeling is forbidden by an Ecumenical Council. My word.

I shall refrain from speculating on what may have provoked this impassioned defense of these two specific practices. But by the time of Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, as his own commentary demonstrates, some strange practices had crept in. There are better patristic commentaries available (I suggest Saint Cyril of Jerusalem).

Father Serge

Father bless,

My intention was, and is, to bring forth a openness to openmindedly bring out Rusyn customs, pieties, traditions, what-have-you.

If one rejects these, so be it. If it opens up a constructive conversation and cast doubt on some widely held, not 100% accurate assumptions, then so be it.

Unfortunately on the "Revised Divine Liturgy" forum the opinions are poles apart and my opinion is that anyone who tries to bridge these poles is disregarded. It was my choice to post on Faith & Worship forum but I was overruled. I knew the result would be negativity.

I apologize if my words were poorly chosen.My being steered to the Synod of Zamosc was misleading, but I accept responsibility for not being more cautious. I have learned a lot from the Byzcath.org forum, but have also learned they there is a large quantity of inaccurate info which goes unchallenged.

Regarding kneeling, if I may call your attention to Page 4 of "Ordo", note #17, the co-authors, Fr Serge and Jack Figel translate, "The servers do not kneel in the Altar during the Divine Liturgy, however, the people may kneel if they so desire." In humility and edification I ask, How does this reconcile with your previous comment?

Fr. Deacon Paul