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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia produced in the first decade or so of the twentieth century is not overly accurate regarding the Eastern Churches. It is always better to look to more authentic sources. I understand the New Catholic Encyclopedia produced in 1967 and updated a few times since is better, but I don’t have a lot of experience with it.


There was disagreement among the bishops as to what constituted the authentic tradition. And there was a war raging around them (and Communists - survival was more important). They entrusted the matter to Rome.

Ruthenians have always had something of an inferiority complex. Many hate who they are because underneath they are really Orthodox in Liturgy. So they copied the ways of the West, both to earn the respect of the West and in the hope that this respect from the West might help them find respect for themselves. But it always fails because one cannot be something other then he is. Rome sees this. And tells us repeatedly to become Ruthenians. And Ruthenians are Orthodox in Liturgy.

I've read the Catholic Encyclopedia article; what's the discrepancy?



"Dictated to"? Hardly. Please read Card. Tisserant's letter in full especially page 111-112 (the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted) of the Keleher-Figel edition (also available here):

See Card. Tisserant's letter (Ordo, Keleher-Figel, 114; also here ff.) of 1941:



More so for the present (Ordo, 115):

I've never seen any Greek-Catholic author assert that that the Synod of Zamost' was not valid, nor do I know of any basis for such an assertion. But that does not give it world-wide authority, and still less does it give that Synod the authority to ignore Vatican II.

As to the Eparchy of Mukachiv, it is quite true that Mukachiv was not represented at Zamost'. Indeed, I've never seen any evidence which would show that the Eparchy was invited to attend. Thus the Synod of Zamost' did not have (and did not claim to have) any authority over the Eparchy of Mukachiv.

The liturgical prescriptions of Zamost' were deplorable, which is why they have fallen or are falling into desuetude.

Fr. Serge

___

Scripture (Lk 18:13)trumps tradition, even more so it trumps being different just to distinguish one tradition from another. I find this very disturbing and a departure from Christian orthodoxy.

____________
I wrote:
[quote]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.)

John responded:
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.

___
Is there any historical data which says that kneeling is NOT an "authentic custom?" Don't tell me about the Russians or the Greeks or the Serbs, etc, but Podkarpatska and the Rusyn lands in Slovakia. Today is the Exaltation of the Cross, which is on a Sunday this year; yet "by tradition" it is a strict fast day. But anyone who kneels "needs training." 'Tis a paradox. It appears that our tradition is very confused.

I will respond to the other posts later. It's time to watch the Steelers!

S'bohom
Fr Deacon Paul

Well, an ecumenical Council saw fit to prohibit kneeling on Sunday!

Fr. Serge

Put it under "Economia".
It has been done for centuries.

How many centuries, and what are your sources?

Fr. Serge

Luke 23:42 - And [the thief on the cross next to Jesus said] said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (ESV)

Luke 18:13- But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' (ESV)

I have no idea how crossing one’s self instead of beating one’s breast during the Communion Prayer could be either disturbing or a departure from Christian orthodoxy. Please explain. The ‘good thief’ did not beat his breasts (his hands were not available when he spoke his words). That the tax collector did does not command us to do the same. It could be done but there is no scriptural imperative here.

I have not researched the history of the custom (at any point in history). One could possibly explain the symbolism of crossing one’s self as a statement of the triumph of the Cross (the suffering on the Cross being the ultimate mercy to me, a sinner). One would need to know the whole history of the custom before judging it.

Cross-pollination of customs has always occurred. Nothing new there. But it is appropriate to examine the various customs that depart from our Orthodox liturgical tradition. Was the custom copied because it was a Roman Catholic one, and therefore considered better? What was the custom that it replaced and what was the symbolism of that custom? Lots of questions to be asked and I credit you for asking them.

Let me refocus - I'm not defending the Synod of Zamosc. Obviously it was apparently Latin domination which brought it about. As I searched to see what it was I got the erroneous info from Catholic Encyclopedia that it was a Byzantine Catholic Synod; however it was only the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, not the Rusyn (or Ruthenian/Byzantine Catholic Church (Mukachevo Eparchy). At least that is my understanding until I can order the book (if available.) Now setting that aside.......

John stated these truisms which I would like to quote:


And then in the next post John said:


Perhaps the pendulum has swung in the other direction, some feel that we are inferior to the Orthodox Church and we have to change some authentic Rusyn Church customs to fit into this new mode.

We must be thankful that we have been blessed with our past heritage, spiritually and cultural. We are not world leaders, in fact the American culture mostly rejects us. But this life passes and we look forward to the next life to which our loving God has made us heirs. So let's be who we are with no apologies to anybody, but not become proud and become a servant to a false god.

We must strengthen our faith and become obedient to the Holy Spirit. We should have learned from the past that the faith of our people is not strengthened simply by mimicking other customs, be it Roman, or Ethiopian, or Russian, or Greek, etc.

When the people come together to worship, why is it imperative that they make the Sign of the Cross if they are comfortable beating their breast -- as long as they are communicating with God? Isn't it better that we all sing, rather than listen to solely to a cantor, or a choir, as in other traditions?

This is all I'm trying to convey in this thread. I'm sorry I even mentioned the RDL; all it does it bring out the every bad memory and invite the brutal beating of my beloved Church. Please don't read anything into this; just take it literally.

If we don't respect our own Byzantine Catholic Church of America then its better if we fold up and deed it over to the UGCC.

Peace to all.

Fr Deacon Paul

This is not the central context of this thread but you asked me to explain my comment, so I will.

The second scriptural reference (the good thief) is not mine, but I can assure you that neither did he make the Sign of the Cross.

With regard to my "departure from Christian orthodoxy" statement,I feel strongly that New Testament scripture should take precedence over a centuries later Church innovation. I am making the assumption that "O God, be merciful to me, a sinner." in the communion prayer is inspired by the publican/pharisee scripture, as well as the good thief verse which you quoted.
I have been taught and understand that the Divine Liturgy is heavily scripture oriented; thus my contention that our physical movement should be related.

Paul B said:

"If we don't respect our own Byzantine Catholic Church of America then its better if we fold up and deed it over to the UGCC."

Ouch! Be careful! What was that about? The Ukie grass being greener?

This is actually a Greek thing. While people in Great Russian and other Eastern Slav churches usually accept incensing or a blessing with a bow, they cross themselves in Greek Orthodox churches. No doubt the Rusyn Churches follow this custom because they received the Faith from Sts. Cyril & Methodius, and not St. Volodymyr. This also probably goes to explain the use of Greek-style vestments.

Dn. Robert

Then let's quit beating ourselves up and invite people instead of complaining about how defective we are! Otherwise what is our reason for existence?

Fr. Dn. that is a very good point and one made almost nowhere with any prominence online or in any book that I have read.

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

Neither Jack Figel nor I are authors or co-authors of the Ordo Celebrationis. We translated it and added some footnotes; that is all. We have no personal responsibility for anything other than the accuracy of the translation and footnotes.

The Ordo Celebrationis was published by the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches when I was about 2 years of age, so you may be certain that I did not write it. So far as I am aware, all the members of the Congregation's Liturgical Commission are now deceased, so unless you are into necromancy, you have no way of interrogating any of them. I am not their spokesman, nor is Jack Figel.

I might have some thoughts on the subject, but I am not about to allow you to impose responsibility on me for a text which I did not write.

You write that you accept responsibility for not being more cautious. That is well, but I would feel more reassured if your next paragraph had not been addressed to me and Mr. Figel in what appears to be something less than humility and edification.

Sorry to be so direct.

with every blessing,

Father Serge

One must take into account that at the time of Nicea the people went to Church much more often and they could express their piety by kneeling on other days. Also in those days kneeling was more associated with penance, today it is more associated with reverence. Given that in today's situation the majority (90%+) of the laity only go to Church on Sunday, I think it is perfectly reasonable to do what our Church had been doing, namely standing from Pascha to Pentecost and kneeling on other Sundays. I deem this an acceptable adaption of Nicea's Canon. We must remember the canons were made for the Church not the Church for the canons. It is also hard to convince the people that standing makes us more Eastern when they can walk down the street to the local Orthodox Church and find people kneeling on Sundays as well.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

There was an amusing episode in Hudson, New York, a few decades ago. Hudson is blessed with a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic parish and an OCA parish. Fine.

But, as it happened, both parishes fell vacant at the same time, and each parish was assigned a new priest. Well and good. Both new priests managed to arrive - without pre-arrangement - at the same moment, and since the churches are virtually across the street from each other, there is sometimes a bit of confusion.

The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic priest, who was full bearded (he's now reposing, we trust, in the heavenly kingdom, so I won't name him), emerged from his car, wearing a Greek cassock, pectoral cross, and skufia and, naturally, carrying his suitcase.

The OCA priest simultaneously emerged from his car. He was clean-shaven, wearing a "clergy suit", and also carrying a suitcase. Each priest approached the church to which he had been assigned.

Immediately the parishioners of each church approached the priest who was coming towards them saying "we're sorry, Father, but you want the church across the street!" Each priest then produced his documents, thus adding to the general confusion.

The confusion lessened a few days later when the wife and children of the OCA priest arrived! Father Theodore, at our church, was not married.

Just thought you would enjoy that delightful memory!

As to whether refraining from kneeling "makes us more Eastern" - it doesn't necessarily do that, but it does make us more consistent. The Roman Mass requires the priest to pray (second prayer of the Canon) "et omnium circumstantium". Since nobody is "circumstantium" at that moment, it would seem that somebody is remarkably inconsistent. Then again, a proper response to the injunction "let us stand aright" is not to get down on our knees!

What we say in Church is intended to be taken seriously.

I wonder if those who insist (for whatever reason) that we should kneel on Sunday also insist that on Pentecost Sunday the Vespers of Genuflection should be done in full.

Fr. Serge

Слава Ісусу Христу!


Gentlemen,

Although there is truth in your arguments, how relevant is it to 21st century man’s salvation? My 19c Baba (Granny) told us “Do as the priest when he is in the altar, do as he says when he isn’t”. Rubrics are for the clergy laving the people to follow as the spirit directs. The people’s expression should be organic not dictated by control freaks.

One parish I left when the pastor told me to get on my knees (ok the excuse not the reason). A few years later he announced from the pulpit parishioners were forbidden to kneel during the liturgy. What remains of this congregation decades later do not kneel during the liturgy, but as soon as the Royal Doors close they hit the floor for their private prayers. Passive aggressive reaction has almost eradicated many of our parishes. Other parishes where the “church people” started standing letting others kneel, eventually the kneeling almost disappears.

The people are the church, not the building with or without a curtain behind an iconostas of which many were not designed to hold. If we replace iconostases to hang curtains instead of feeding the hungry, conducting a full range Sunday School program or replacing a leaky roof we are not being Easterners but vanity seekers. I don’t care how beautiful a building is, without people using it, it is a museum not a church.

We discuss possible Latinization from the dictates at the top instead of the organic development from the people. Should nativity sets on the "tetrapod" be overlooked? Is singing AVA MARIA at a wedding with a guitar accompaniment worse than the father of the bride giving away his daughter? Why are Liturgies at funerals inappropriate? These trouble the people of God. Today.

Dear Father Serge,

Bless!

Your story is brilliant!!

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction - glad you enjoyed that example of the genre!

Fr. Serge


Dear Mykhayl,



Depending on the size of the congregation, that could take a conisiderable amount of water!



And just who do you think manipulated the people into quite artificial forms of behaviour? The tooth fairy?



I remember serving a parish where that was happening. The immediate result was a nasty encounter at a parish meeting, with one contingent demanding to know why some people considered themselves "better" than others. Moral: if people want to fight, they will.



Forty years ago I might have called that an interesting idea. Now I find it excruciatingly boring. It has been used to justify some of the more egregious ecclesiastical misconduct of the later twentieth century, and the end is not in sight.



How's that again? I'm attempting to determine just what (according to you) was not designed to hold what. Surely there is no necessity to design an entire building just to "hold" a curtain! Nor is it necessary to design a curtain to hold an icon-screen. Nor is it necessary to draw up a special design in order to have an icon-screen which will hold a curtain. The processes involved really aren't all that complicated.


????

When was the last time you met someone who deliberately went around hanging curtains instead of feeding the hungry? Hanging a simple curtain where it belongs on the icon-screen costs precious little money - not enough to feed very many people. Do you know people who have gone out of their way to sell all the curtains in their homes and use the money derived from the sale of the curtains to feed the hungry?




And therefore? Are we supposed to junk the principle that beauty will save the world? Try visiting the Church of Our Saviour in Chora (in Constantinople) sometime. That matchless beauty continues to witness to the faith of those who built and adorned it - that one fresco of the Descent into Hell would be worth the trip all by itself. And something tells me that if the Turks allowed a scientific survey of the visitors to this "museum", one would find that the Christians heavily outnumber the non-Christians.

Speaking of Turkey, do you seriously believe that a significant number of Turks are making strenuous efforts to reclaim the Agia Sophia as a mosque just because the Muslims have no mosques in which to pray?

Have you ever even heard of anyone who would hang curtains while the roof was leaking?




No. They should be removed. The whole idea has to do with a skewed understanding of the Incarnation (and that, surprise, surprise, could just have bearing on the salvation of people). The art work is often in questionable taste and almost always inappropriate. But if it will make you feel any better, I don't object to the notion that the priest should exercise patience and act with caution, rather than insulting people's feelings.




To the best of my recollection, I've never heard anyone attempting to sing the Ave Maria with a guitar accompaniment - nor do I wish to hear it. As for "the father of the bride giving away his daughter", not only is no such practice to be found in our service-books, but these days any father who tries it is likely to be ambushed by the local feminists, quite possibly including his own daughter, who does not care to be considered as the equivalent of a bouquet of flowers or a box of chocolates, to be given away! [Before you ask, I like flowers and I'm always happy to be given a box of chocolates.]




Heavens, I don't know. So please tell me, why do Liturgies at funerals trouble the people of God? I've not had any such problem; most people in my experience prefer to have a Divine Liturgy with a funeral. In the exceptional case of those who do not, I will usually announce at the funeral that the forty-day Divine Liturgy will be held on such-and-such a day, and people come for it uncomplainingly.

Still less do I know what a Divine Liturgy at a funeral has to do with curtains, or a leaking roof. It could be construed as having some connection with feeding the hungry, since most of our faithful want and expect to have a meal for those who come to the funeral.

You seem to be severely angry at someone for something. But until you determine whom and what you are angry at, and acknowledge this, it will be almost impossible for anyone to be of help to you.

with every blessing,

Fr. Serge

My knees still remember that experience.

Fr Serge,

It is a pleasure to read your posts. I was so amused I laughed out loud.

Fr David Straut

Father Serge:

Father bless!!

First let me say that your posts are always edifying.

Then let me say that my daughter is marrying in October and I have yet to be asked to "give her way." And I doubt I will. I haven't even been invited to be part of the plans or preparations except to be told to rent a tux and rent a room.

Asking for your blessing and continued holy prayers,

BOB

Dear Byzantine TX, Father David, and Theophan,

Please accept my thanks - it's so nice to be appreciated!

One small question - if one is not "giving one's daughter away", why bother with a tux?

Fr. Serge

Father Serge:

It's for the "family picture," I guess. The etiquette book says that the fathers are supposed to be part of the wedding party, together with the mothers of the couple.

To tell the truth this is a real re-make of what I would consider "traditional," but I'm glad to just float along with the tide. There are lots of "non-traditonal" twists and turns to this one.

BOB

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Thank you Reverend Fathers for your direction.

Direction rather than dictation may be the basis of the subject here. To many Byzantine is synonymous with devious arrogance. Never the less many in our history are remembered lovingly because of their gentle nudging. The Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan John (Teodorovych) comes to mind. He accepted person re-consecration for unity sake yet allowed local irregularities rather than antagonize the piety of his children. Some of the "new" clerics direct without compassion. They drive many of our Eastern minded faithful away with the letter rather than the spirit seemingly to squander local parish reserves entrusted to them unchallenged. Who will replenish these voids?

Tim posted to this thread raising the issue of the custom of greeting visitors and newcomers to parishes. The discussion which followed has been excellent (and a pet topic of mine, personally), but far afield from the main topic of this thread as it was initiated by Deacon Paul.

I have moved the posts, beginning with the one by Tim, to Parish Life and Evangelization - the thread there is titled The Customs of Greeting: Making Visitors Welcome. Please continue that discussion there and, by all means, continue the discussion here on the original topic.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you Neil, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Tim