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.