I've asked about this before ( link1 & link2 & link3 ) without any definitive response. Still wondering. From the 2007 Liturgicon Foreword:



Noting that "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected," I take it that some must have been found wanting (unauthentic?) and therefore not respected (rejected?). What are these non-respected practices and what was the basis for that determination?

Much depends on what definition one uses of "Ruthenian".

Fr. Serge

Right. In the context of my question, I have in mind the Ruthenian practices that were evaluated that took us, in part, from the Recension Slavonic editions to the 2007 liturgicon. Since it is specifically mentioned in the foreword as an item of consideration to produce "the final product," I would assume there are specific items/instances that could be enumerated that figured in or out and that could readily be illustrated, for instance, by comparing the Slavonic recension text to the RDL.

Since the time that Archbishop Judson started the RDL process, was not there a concerted effort to change some authentic Ruthenian Recension practices and make them resemble Helenic usage? My example would be the Ruthenian Recension practice of the singing of all of the Paschal parts of the Divine Liturgy all of the Sundays of the Paschal season.

Ung

This is a valid issue about which I'd like to know more: how and when and why did the custom evolve; why was it reversed?

Though valid, it is also beyond the scope of the question I asked. That question is intended as a tight focus on two unambiguous entities, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as given in the Slavonic Recension text (and the details given in the Ordo) and the English version of the same liturgy as in the 2007 liturgicon. One of several stated rationales in going from one to the other, as given in the foreword of the RDL liturgicon, is a consideration of "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices." To what does this criterion apply; what were the pros and cons for the practices considered? One should be able to connect the dots in going from one to the other; at the very least one should be able to say what the dots are. Since it is explicitly stated as a consideration in the foreword, it must have been studied. What specifically does the phrase refer to?

The forward itself raises a number of questions that have not been answered.

"The text has been translated from the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic of the Služebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English translation of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission of Pittsburgh and Passaic (1965)..."

Why was the 1942 Slavonic Služebnik not used as the base text for translation? It is the normative text for all Churches in the Ruthenian recension. In what way does the 1950 Greek text capture the legitimate nuances of the Ruthenian recension that the official 1942 Ruthenian recension text does not? One can certainly understand the translators using various Greek texts as references to better understand the Slavonic text. But not to use our own official and normative text as the basis for the translation? It seems that if one felt the 1950 Greek text was a better text and should be used as the basis for translation then one should have come to common agreement with all the Churches that use the 1942 Ruthenian normative text so that unity is maintained. Is there evidence of this being done? If yes, what is the evidence? If not, why not? These questions have not been answered.

"The rubrics are founded on a careful historical study of the development of the Liturgy as revealed by manuscript evidence and modern liturgical scholarship."

This statement says that the common specific and normative standard for all Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and the larger general standard (common texts and rubrics) used by all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) were rejected. What were the reasons for the rejection of the common standard? What were the objective criteria for determining that certain rubrics and texts given in the specific standard for the Ruthenians were inauthentic and needed to be changed? What is the specific “manuscript evidence” that supports this claim that certain rubrics and texts given in the official 1942 edition are inauthentic? What specific “modern liturgical scholarship” is being referenced here? Why were not those elements of the Ruthenian recension deemed by the committee to be inauthentic raised to all the Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension so that they might work together to retain liturgical unity? Was this "evidence" presented to the larger Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox)? What was the official response from these Churches and where was this response published? These questions have not been answered.

"Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected and the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America."

What is the specific pastoral situation in the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church that is so different than the pastoral situation in other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that requires a different set of liturgical rubrics? There are numerous parishes in the Pittsburgh Metropolia that are located close to parishes of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church (both share the Ruthenian recension with us)? There are also numerous other parishes (Melkite, OCA, Greek Orthodox) using a recension of the Byzantine Liturgy with liturgical rubrics that are far closer to the 1942 Ruthenian Standard than they are to those given in the Revised Divine Liturgy. What are the specific needs of our parishes that are served by prohibiting the official and normative version of our Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (as promulgated by Rome in 1942) that are different than those pastoral needs in these other parishes. Why cannot the official and normative version of the Divine Liturgy given in the 1942 edition possibly meet these pastoral needs? What is the specific evidence that the 1942 Liturgy cannot meet these needs? Where has the 1942 been tried and failed? These questions have not been answered.

As I have noted numerous times there is some good work in the 2007 text but that good work is far overshadowed by the unnecessary and unacceptable departures from the texts and rubrics of the official and normative 1942 edition (plus the problems that come with the gender neutering the biblical and liturgical texts). The 1964/1965 English edition was far closer to the 1942 Standard. The 2007 Revised Divine Liturgy should be abandoned. The 1964/1965 text should be used as the starting text, and corrected to make those texts as literally exact translations of the 1942 Slavonic as is possible while respecting what the faithful have memorized over the past 40 years.

It is seldom worth-while to argue about definitions. But in this case I will: "Ruthenian" as used with reference to the books published for that usage about 6.5 decades ago refers to those judicatories which had been using the 1905 "Missale Ruthenum" and related editions; Rome acted on the request of Metropolitan Andrew and his episcopal conferences, of which Bishop Basil of Pittsburgh was then one.

That raises the question of why a small double fraction of a Local Church should presume to depart from the general usage. I am not just theorizing; Bishop Milan of Mukachiv served here in mid-summer and had not the slightest difficulty serving in accordance with the official books. In so doing, he was following the sublime example of Blessed Theodore of Mukachiv, who published a reprint of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom according to the 1941 edition.

Fr. Serge

And likewise when he concelebrated with a UGCC hierarch last year (don't remember which one, possibly +Julian) my friend who was serving basically related the same interpretation.

Perhaps the answer to the question of the departure from standard Greek Catholic or Orthodox usage, translation, etc. is the desire for the creation of a new American modern liturgical particularity in the BCCA.

If so, it is one, however, in which, as we are informed, "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected" -- except that no one is saying what those are and if there were unauthentically distinct, authentically indistinct or unauthentically indistinct practices that were not respected, and what they might be. (Basically, what do those words, the threads title, refer to?)

Just for fun, how would one go about being inauthentically distinct? Or authentically indistinct? Or distinctly inauthentic?

Fr. Serge

Even "funner" I'd say and informative, take some items not in the RDL but in the Recension as possible examples or candidates, or customs that are disputed (I list some without implying approval or disapproval):

1. the small litanies
2. use of precuts
3. all Latinizations
4. the rite at the prayer(s) of the faithful
5. rubrics at 4. and at the Cherubicon
6. rubrics at the ablution
7. elimination of (what was it called) "creeping Paschalism"
8. the embolism "to worship the Father and..." at the response "It is proper and just..."
9. abbreviated proskomedia
10. the dismissal service of the priest and deacon
11. antidoron and its service
12 use of the ripidion
13 use of cuffs not permitted for deacons (in force before and after the RDL in Passaic, not sure of present status)

Not all these pertain to the liturgicon which is the focus here, but I list them as a stimulus for what might be considered.

Also, I ask the question of the thread not because I'm advancing the “Gutenberg Assumption” or a "Gutenberg Fundamentalist" approach to use Fr. David's phrases, but because we should appreciate what we have received as our liturgical patrimony, know it, experience it. It is only then that we can properly evaluate it before implementing any necessary modification let alone novelties and antiquarianisms.

If you are looking for authentically distinct Ruthenian practices in the BCCA, here's a couple for you.

1. The circular firing squad.
2. The ability of the church to aim at anything, yet shoot itself in the foot.

Man, are we good at those!

I couldn't agree more! Reminds me of the famous obstetrical hospital in Warsaw, reputed to be the best in slavdom. It's so highly thought of, in fact, that there is a two-year waiting list.

Fr. Serge

The use of cuffs not permitted for deacons in Passaic? When we had a deacon he most certainly used cuffs. Why would it not be permitted for a deacon to be fully vested?

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!

On Predanije's first question, outside the USA there are a variety of translations still in use. A bit chaotic, perhaps, but I would offer the thought that before devising and imposing a "one standard translation" it would be sensible to await the completion of Father Archimandrite Robert Taft's multi-volume on the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. And there are other considerations.

Fr. Serge