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?