Yes, the Council of Hierarchs seem to do this practice often.

Ung

That was a pecularity of Bishop Andrew. Many ignored that particular instruction and now that the Bishop Andrew is no longer the ruling hierarch I would assume that insturction has faded into obscurity.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is readily verified: obtain a copy of the Passaic 1997 Liturgicon, in force until the 2007 promulgation; it does not have rubrics or vesting prayers for cuffs for the deacon. As of a year ago, Passaic deacons were instructed that the no-cuff policy was still in effect. I don't know if there's been a change with the new bishop.

An explanation I recall was that the deacon is not vested or presented with cuffs at ordination. [See Ruthenian Archieraticon, p 242; the deacon is given orarion, kadilnitsa and ripidion. For the order of presbyter, cuffs are given, p 250 ] One only wears what is proper for one's order as given by the bishop. This makes sense and is good ecclesiology, since the bishop, as the head of a particular church, is the sole source for the bestowal of orders in that church. On the other hand there is the general custom and the rubrics and vesting prayers for cuffs for the deacon in the Recension Služebnik, p 169, and as reflected in the 1965 liturgicon and the 2007 (RDL) liturgicon also.

What has proper precedence: pristine practice? or common custom? or something else?

The use of the epimanika by the deacon is all but universal; to mandate a departure from it the bishop would need a more serious reason than the one proposed. The attempt to forbid the cuffs is sheer hubris at best; at worst it is part of a pattern seeking to make the Ruthenians as "different" as possible from the larger Byzantine world (I trust that I am not forbidden to entertain such a suspicion).

Fr. Serge

Fr. Bless...

How could you possibly think there would be "sheer hubris" coming from the former eparch of Passaic...and how could you possibly think Ruthenians in the USA would look to be different than the larger Byzantine world...

Any bishop who forbids the use of cuffs in the byzantine liturgy ought to be degraded, and i don't mean 'degrade' in the sense of 'insult'. What were the qualifications Rome was using in selecting bishops here?

Back to the original question:




One would first need to list those things that make the Ruthenian Recension different from others. From my own studies it would seem most often it is what we do not do that makes the Ruthenian Recension different, at least in the Divine Liturgy. Compared to the OCA Divine Liturgy:
1. No "O, Lord save the pious and hear us" at the doxology of the prayer of the Trisagion.
2. The Litany of Fervent Supplication has six petition rather than ten.
3. No exchange of rememberance between priest and deacon at the Great Entrance.
4. No troparia when placing the chalice and diskos on the altar.
5. No troparia at the Epiclesis.
6. No rememberance of the deacon after the Epilcesis.
7. No troparia when returning the chalice and diskos to the altar.
8. No "Wash away O Lord..." when placing the commemoration particles in the chalice.

We do commemorate the Angels at prosokmedia which the Russians do not do.

At Vespers we have eight prayers of light rather than seven and the blessing of the entrance is a unique text.

At Matins I am not aware of any differneces.

These are differneces in the Recensions themselves.

There is then the matter of what changes Bishop Daniel was granted from the 41 Liturgicon and what was granted again and written into the 07 Liturgicon.

Rubrically speaking it seems the only change Bishop Daniel requested that was granted again was leaving the holy doors open throughout the Liturgy. Textually we retain a unique pre-communion prayer. These seem to be the only derogations from the 41 Liturgikon that were continued and written into the 07 Liturgikon.

I would deem then those changes he was granted that were not continued to be the inauthentic rejected practices. What else could they have been refering to?

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is very useful summary to which can be added differences with Greek practices, etc. Inferences about "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices..." can be made, but why not those who know (it was stated in the foreword as a consideration after all) just tell us, avoiding the possibility of incorrect inferences?


Reviewing the exchange of letters ( link & passim) again will be instructive I'm sure, but again, why the need for busy-work?


Again, it would be nice if "they" would simply tell us. By "us" I mean the faithful of the church using the resultant liturgy. As thorough and informative as these points are to my question, they still do not address in full the liturgicon-specific issues I enumerated in a previous post.

Why not just end the charades?

Diference between Ruthenian and Greek Recensions:

Since above I outlined what we don't have in relation to the Russian Recension Divine Liturgy perhaps it is easier to simply state what the Greeks have:

1. "Dynamis" procalimed by deacon before the last repetition of the Trisagion.
2. The Litany of Fervent Supplication has nine petitions rather than our six.
3. "Having beheld the resurrection of Christ..." while placing the fractioned Holy Body into the chalice.
4. "Wash away O Lord..." when placing the commemoration particles in the chalice.

At Vespers Psalm 103, O Joyful Light, Vouchsafe O Lord, and the Canticle of Simeon and at Matins the Six Psalms, Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, and Psalm 50 are reserved to the priest or the reader he designates, i.e these are supposed to be chanted by one person not everyone.

Items 2, 3, and 4 on Father Deacon's list are standard, not peculiar to the Hellenes.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

My point was to show the difference between our Recension and the Greek. However, their Litany of Fervent Supplication has nine petitions where the OCA has ten, at least in the translations I am looking at. The OCA text has the priest/deacon saying nothing while placing the Holy Body in the chalice, reciting "Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ" when chalice is retuned to the altar. So there are slight differences betwen Greek and Russian usage even in things they do share.

It is also worth noting that BDW does not contain 1, 3 or 4. I assume Archbishop Joseph of blessed memory translated from the Roman published 1950 Greek Liturgicon so I wonder: Did the producers of the Greek Liturgicon eliminate accretions in this text?

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Rome:1950 Greek liturgicon does not have the diakonika dunamis/δύναμις, p_30. A parallel Greek/English translation from Holy Cross has the dunamis right before the final repetition of the trisagion. Though not in the Recension Služebnik, p_209 a diakonika is found in the Recension Archieraticon, p_42, though different (expanded) words, Give glory to Christ our God, and occurring before the doxology. Of this latter, listen here, form 1966 recording. As an aside, I've tried transcribing the the (poignant/plantive) singing of the Greek here but have been unsuccessful using the standard chromatic scale and tempering. I wonder if microtones are not need. At any rate, I have verified that the diaconal part comes in at perfect pitch to resume the singing of the trisagion. I've been told that the voice of the "deacon" was that of Fr. Gerald Dino, now Bishop of Van Nuys. Whoever the deacon, that's the way it should be done.

Ah, yes, the diaconal summons "Give glory unto Christ our God" at the Pontifical Liturgy. Funny you should mention that. Msgr. Peter Molchany of the Carpatho-Russian Diocese liked to intone this, to a rather elaborate melody and repeating the open phrase three times. Since in his later years the good Father Vicar developed a rather broad vibrato, inevitably this led to people imitating his voice - and this particular piece was easy to do. One priest in particular (whom charity forbids me to name) did a truly outstanding imitation, as a sort of "party piece". The priest's wife had heard her husband do this any number of times, but had never heard the original until a major diocesan festivity came along. The poor presvytera was laughing so hard that she had to leave the church!

Fr. Serge

I don't know if this is the appropriate place for these questions but I will ask anyway:

In non-USA English-speaking regions where the liturgy is celebrated in the Ruthenian recension I am wondering what sort of translation is used? If anyone can elaborate on this topic I would be grateful.

Also a second question: Is there any Ruthenian parish in the United States that celebrates the liturgy in Church Slavonic on a regular basis?

-Predánije

So let me get this straight.

Are the bishops saying that things like full Antiphons, Litanies, accurate translations and singable music are not authentically distinct Ruthenian practices? They were not authentic parts of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and so had to be purged and forbidden by force of mandate?

God save us from the RDL!