The "green Book" thread on the RDL forum brought a few questions to my mind and I'm looking for your opinions for these questions:

These are "Byzantine Catholic" customs which I grew up with which have been discouraged or deemed "Latinizations" at times on Byzcath.org:

1. Making the sign of the cross when the priest blesses the congregation or an object.

2. Beating one's breast instead of making the sign of the cross during the "publican's words" during Communion Prayer

3. Kneeling. Now I know that standing is proper for Sundays but it appears that the vocal laity and clergy have informally "banned" (a word frequently thrown around on these forums). I thought that kneeling (bending one's knees) is a sign of repentance. Yet even on fast days (Wednesdays, Fridays, Philipian Fast, Great Fast, minor fasts) no one kneels or is instructed that they should kneel (or prostrate, if the spirit moves you.)

It appears that using all five senses during Divine Office has been stifled, responding to the Spirit is "passe." Instead we only do what is "prescribed" according to our "custom." However it seems that "our custom" is an arbitrary (?) selection. It seems to me that sometimes we are supposed to follow strictly the Ruthenian rubrics and customs; at other times we abandon those practices to follow the general Eastern Orthodox custom. Its a paradox that needs explanation.

Your observations, comments, etc are requested.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Maybe this is one of the few things this book can be praised for. If Latinizations are OK, why not make it complete and go for the full thing, thus leaving any identity as a Byzantine Catholic behind?

Liturgical identity and fidelity is what Rome has required, not Latinizations.

Fr. Dn. Paul,

Some of the things you have listed are localized liturgical customs, some are Latinizations. I think it would be good to get a copy of the book " The Synod of Zamosc". That Synod introduced many Latinizations into both the Church of Subcarpathian-Rus' and the Church of Halich-Rus' (both part of the Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church Tradition). I believe there are copies available from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Seminary in Stamford, Conn.

I have noticed that among the Orthodox churches in Transcarpathia (Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate), they still kneel for the Consecration and during the distribution of the Holy Eucharist.

Ung

Thanks Ung, this is very enlightening. I shall try to purchase a copy. In my curiosity I search the Internet and found some helpful information from CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA that is available on www.catholic.org

This is difficult, but I in this discussion I would like to exclude church politics and will try to stick with sound ecclesiatics (difficult as this may be in this tempestuous time).

From this introductory reading on the Synod of Zamosc our Rusyn Greek Catholic Church obviously has superseded some of these "unity compromises" and retained others. As I am trying to comprehend what the "Byzantine Catholic Church sui iuris SHOULD BE, I have some questions which I offer up for comment.

1. The 1720 Synod of Zamosc appears to be a valid synod. What overrules this Synod?
There is a difficulty because the original Ruthenian (Rusyn) Greek Catholic Church has splintered; we have the Metropolitan Churches of L'viw, the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, the Metropolitan Church of Presov, plus several Eparchies. If I can set aside these other Churches I focus only on the Metropolitan Byzantine Catholic Church of America.
Now my humble opinion is that there hasn't been another Synod which overrulled the Synod of Zamosc. (If so please inform me of the details.

2. Church particular law (promulgated in 1999)appears to void some of the Latinizations, such as infant Communion

3. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches appears to have superseded some of the Synod's requirements ("Zeon" or "Teplota" is now the rule).

4. The 2007 Promulgation of the Liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil have superseded additional Latinizations authorized by the Synod of Zamosc. This has been presented on numerous occasions in the RDL forum.

5. Am I correct to assume that no other changes to the Synod are authorized? For instance "Ordo Celebrationis" was never officially accepted by the Pittsburgh (Arch)Eparchy.

In hindsight, when Pope John Paul called for the Eastern Churches to drop latinizations and recover its "authentic" traditions, he should have called Synods of the Eastern Churches to officially make these changes. However, he did not, so some of the Orthodox rubrics which we hear about on this forum do not apply to us; actually they are unauthorized! That is they do not have sui iuris church authority.

6. If we begin to practice some of the Orthodox traditions (such as full processions around the nave for the Great Entrance) aren't we departing departing from our Ruthenian Church? And if we do so, which Patriarchal Church should we imitate?

Wow! What a pickle!

Your comments?

Fr. Deacon Paul

Are you then stating that the Ruthenian Church is in direct disobedience to Rome on a mandate? According to both versions of the text I have, the Ordo was mandated by Rome.

Fr Deacon Paul

Which edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia have you used for this research ?

No, I'm not saying that; I'm asking questions and possibly making incorrect assumptions. I'm trying to make sense of all this.

It's a bit of a stretch to call this "research," the link is http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10245

By my read, the hierarchy has been flaunting and ignoring the mandates from 1942 to present regarding the directive to return to authentic tradition by Rome, especially regarding the Ordo. So why does it come as a surprise if they started finally showing fidelity when it comes to this?

Sui juris as it may be, they (the Ruthenian Church) are still bound in direct obedience to the Holy See and its directives.

well yes - after all it is rather dated.

I mean it actually talks of the Divine Liturgy as Mass

I take it that you are saying that the BC Church is now starting to show fidelity. I suppose that you could reasonably take this position. So why is the RDL and other recent changes under such intense criticism? Should one take an "all or nothing" position?

With regard to my point #1 (making the sign of the cross when one is blessed by the priest), the English translation of Ordo celebrationis, Serge Keleher and Jack Figel, Eastern Christian Publications, 1996, states as a general rule that this is correct (page3).

With regard to point #2 (beating of breast, as opposed to the Sign of the Cross), this is scriptural, as the publican beat his breast, and I don't think he considered it a latinization.I think that they who call for the sign of the cross is a revisionist.

With regard to point #3 (kneeling), page 4 (general notes) states that those in the Altar do not kneel, but the people MAY.

So which Tradition are we adopting? This is my principle question. There is so much misinformation out there that everyone is confused. Although their intentions may be pure, there are those in other Tradition who are telling us that we should follow their Tradition rather than our own. Our authorities are our heirarchy and Rome (those uniates really are inferior, aren't they?

More comments? And I continue to be receptive to correction (please do it gently.)

Fr. Deacon Paul

Yes, if you carefully review my previous comments I never stated that the hierarchs have fully embraced the directives, they are just starting. That means they have a long way to go before they are truly faithful to the directives that they have willfully ignored for so long. As for the bulk of the RDL, they still have to prove that it is faithful to an openly published directive such as the Ordo. Some changes have proven that, but the rest are nowheres to be found in the Ordo.

Administrator,

With regard to this thread being moved, I feel that because the RDL is only one component of this discussion that "Faith and Worship" was more appropriate.

However, I will abide with your decision.

More comments on appropriate ecclesiastic means of rightfully determining Ruthenian tradition? including my three initial points?

BTW, as I reviewed Ordo I noticed in footnote #342 (p166) that "the Eparchy of Mukachevo-Uzhorod was not represented at the Synod of Zamost." So we have a discrepancy with "Catholic Encyclopedia." How's is that for confusing?

Also confusing to me is the Appendix I,Circular of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church to Ruthenian Ordinaries states, "The Cardinals, members of this Sacred Congregation, in the above mentioned plenary session of 10 January 1938, without taking specific decisions about the merits of any particular disputed points, established certain general principles to serve as a basis for the further work of revision and printing of the Ruthenian liturgical books and entrusted this work to a special commission chaired by the Cardinal Secretary of this Sacred Congregation. So this would mean that our Rusyn and Rusyn-American bishops were not participants because they weren't Cardinals (I surmise). How about that? Does this mean that those of the Ruthenian Church have to be dictated to as to what their customs are? I wonder why we are confused?

Someone help, please.

Dear Father Deacon Paul,

Just for point of clarification, I was the administrator that moved this thread since topics dealing with the RDL should be dealt with in the section designated for it, even if only part of thread deals with the issue.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Father Deacon Paul asks reasonable questions. I’ve quoted his points in italics and offer my thoughts below them.

From his first post:

FDP: 1. Making the sign of the cross when the priest blesses the congregation or an object.

I do not remember anyone ever calling this a latinization or anyone trying to prohibit the custom. While I am sure there are local variations the custom is pretty universal among Slavic Byzantines.

FDP: 2. Beating one's breast instead of making the sign of the cross during the "publican's words" during Communion Prayer.

This appears to have been a purposeful imitation of the custom at the Latin Confiteor (“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”).

FDP: 3. Kneeling. Now I know that standing is proper for Sundays but it appears that the vocal laity and clergy have informally "banned" (a word frequently thrown around on these forums). I thought that kneeling (bending one's knees) is a sign of repentance. Yet even on fast days (Wednesdays, Fridays, Philipian Fast, Great Fast, minor fasts) no one kneels or is instructed that they should kneel (or prostrate, if the spirit moves you.)

There is a proper place for kneeling, and you will find it at Presanctified, when making prostrations, in some places at the matins of the Veneration of the Cross (14 Sept and Third Sun Great Fast). It is less appropriate to kneel at the Divine Liturgy. So it is not so much anyone seeking to prohibit kneeling as it is to restore kneeling to its proper place in the liturgical cycle. But restoration should respect people. Correct the books. Educate. And let the older folk continue as they are while training the next generation into a more authentic custom.

FDP: It appears that using all five senses during Divine Office has been stifled, responding to the Spirit is "passe." Instead we only do what is "prescribed" according to our "custom." However it seems that "our custom" is an arbitrary (?) selection. It seems to me that sometimes we are supposed to follow strictly the Ruthenian rubrics and customs; at other times we abandon those practices to follow the general Eastern Orthodox custom. Its a paradox that needs explanation.

You would have to offer specific rubrics and customs. Those given in the 1942 & 1964 Liturgicons are virtually identical to those in the parallel Orthodox Churches. There are no official English Vespers & Matins books but the ones published by the Sisters of Saint Basil are also rubrically very close to the parallel Orthodox books. The RDL does not restore anything Eastern not found in the earlier editions.

From his post at 4:19:

FDP: 1. The 1720 Synod of Zamosc appears to be a valid synod. What overrules this Synod?
There is a difficulty because the original Ruthenian (Rusyn) Greek Catholic Church has splintered; we have the Metropolitan Churches of L'viw, the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, the Metropolitan Church of Presov, plus several Eparchies. If I can set aside these other Churches I focus only on the Metropolitan Byzantine Catholic Church of America. Now my humble opinion is that there hasn't been another Synod which overrulled the Synod of Zamosc. (If so please inform me of the details.)

The official books for the Ruthenian recension promulgated by Rome (starting in 1941) overrule the liturgical prescriptions of the Synod of Zamosc. While there was no formal synod that approved the official books of the Ruthenian recension, these books were prepared by Rome at the request of the various Ruthenian bishops. The promulgation of the Ruthenian liturgical books were not optional (although some temporary allowances were made).

As to the idea of splintering, all Ruthenians are of the same liturgical recension. The Canons and Liturgical Instruction are written with the expectation not only that we work together but also work with the Orthodox as far as possible. Things common to all Byzantines would be addressed at that level. Things common only to all Ruthenians (Carpathians, Ukrainians, Slovaks, Hungarians) would be addressed at that level (the level of the Ruthenian recension). [See sections 18, 21 and 25 of the Liturgical Instruction for the specific directives.]

FDP: 2. Church particular law (promulgated in 1999) appears to void some of the Latinizations, such as infant Communion

Yes, but I would advance the idea that the Particular Law is rather flawed. Instead of establishing the generic rule it often attempts to speak to every case. But that is another discussion.

FDP: 3. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches appears to have superseded some of the Synod's requirements ("Zeon" or "Teplota" is now the rule).

Could you list the specific canons you are speaking to? Canon 40 §1 speaks to the responsibility of bishops to “see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians” but I don’t believe that there are specific canons regarding zeon / teplota. The Liturgical Instruction does direct the restoration of zeon (section 67). Zeon / teplota is a proper part of our heritage.

FDP: 4. The 2007 Promulgation of the Liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil have superseded additional Latinizations authorized by the Synod of Zamosc. This has been presented on numerous occasions in the RDL forum.

Could you please restate this? The RDLs (Chrysostom and Basil) do not eliminate any latinizations when compared to the 1942 and 1964 Liturgicons. They do introduce a few new ones (such as mandating the aloud praying of the Anaphora in direct imitation of the custom in the Roman Catholic Novus Ordos Mass.

FDP: 5. Am I correct to assume that no other changes to the Synod are authorized? For instance "Ordo Celebrationis" was never officially accepted by the Pittsburgh (Arch)Eparchy.

It is time for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh to finally be obedient to Rome’s directives on Liturgy! But to the more specific point, that the bishops have been disobedient to the directives from Rome regarding Liturgy since 1941 does not mean they should remain in disobedience.

FDP: In hindsight, when Pope John Paul called for the Eastern Churches to drop latinizations and recover its "authentic" traditions, he should have called Synods of the Eastern Churches to officially make these changes. However, he did not, so some of the Orthodox rubrics which we hear about on this forum do not apply to us; actually they are unauthorized! That is they do not have sui iuris church authority.

Can you be more specific? Which Orthodox rubrics do not apply to us? The standard for compassion is the official liturgical books published by Rome in Slavonic beginning in 1941.

FDP: 6. If we begin to practice some of the Orthodox traditions (such as full processions around the nave for the Great Entrance) aren't we departing from our Ruthenian Church? And if we do so, which Patriarchal Church should we imitate?

One would have to examine each particular custom, determining its historical origin, how it came into the Ruthenian Church, and how it is kept today. The Little and Great Entrances come to us from the Great Church in Constantinople. I’ve not studied how they were conducted in the Ruthenian Churches in Europe but I am unaware of anything that would suggest that the shorter entrance is a Ruthenian custom and that a longer entrance is from another Church’s tradition.

The larger point here is that when examining customs one looks to where they come to us from and why they came. Some customs are a natural borrowing back and forth among Churches (that is, among various Eastern Churches or from/to Western Churches). Other customs that qualify as latinizations are those we accepted on purpose because we saw our own customs as second class and those of the Roman Catholics as first class (or somehow superior).

But as always, one renews with pastoral concern for the faithful. Publish correct liturgical books but respect texts and music already memorized. Renew with decades of education, example and encouragement. If a woman has been praying the rosary for 50 years don’t treat her as stupid, tell her she should not pray it, and that she must now pray the Akathist or Jesus Prayer. Raise the next generation correctly.