I think though they are the general, common rubrics that would be followed except for explicit rubrics in the particular service book, e.g. the ARCHIERATIKON. The Ordo has generic priest and deacon(s). The bishop is a priest.

This is good information and may be a consideration but I feel we should first know and even follow what is ours.


Yes, what does it actually say: Archieratikon 038-039. But how relevant is it for our church? The recension text (rubrics) was not treated well in the RDL translation.


Thanks for providing this. "Celebrant"? Why celebrant? Hierarch or bishop perhaps. Who else would be the priest using the Archieratikon? The deacon does kiss a hand -- interesting designation in the Slavonic. Where in the recension text does he face the bishop?

[emphasis added]

Yes, this is the point and the question: Liturgy by the book within reason or the selective liturgical preference of the select few?

I like the discussion of language. I am not able to translate much but can read Cyrillic and can compare, forgive my bad transliteration. In the Hierarchical Liturgy it uses the Slavonic Archiereu During the Great Entrance archierea and archiepiskopa are use in refering to the Pope and archbishop. Likewise in the regular liturgy this entrance uses the word for priest ijereu. The regular Liturgy also has the deacon kiss the hand of the priest (vozvishajet malo rutzja). The difference with the regular Liturgy is that after that is added that the deacon i stav pred which I think means stands in front. The line that has vchodit diakon (hierarchial protodiakon) posred which I am not sure of the meaning. I think there is a line in the Liturgy that says posred i nas but I cannot remember where.

Usually the anointing at mirovanije (other than at Pascha or Christmas) is "Christos Posred i nas" (Christ Is Amongst Us). Hope that helps.

Thanks Deacon Bob. I was just thinking of that so the word might mean near. Even though in English I say Christ is among us It would make sense to say Christ is near us. I know there are others on this forum better at translating than I am but I just wanted to have some fun. I grew up with this language and heard it for over 25 years. It also brings back memories of my Slavonic Liturgy class.

Same/similar phrases are in the rubrics of the Archieratikon p 38 and the Liturgicon/Sluzhebnik p 206 at this entrance. In fact they are mostly using the same wording. The difference is that the bishop's hand is to be kissed. In both the deacon stands in the center (posredi), elevates hands a little (vozvishajet malo rutsi), and shows the Holy Gospel. The rubric that the deacon stands in front of the priest is not in the Archieratikon; there is no rubric that the priest's hand is kissed; there is no rubric that the deacon faces the bishop. Regarding the last then, what is the source for "the first deacon, at the solea, turns and faces the Celebrant" in the current BCC translation?

Not sure where the "new" rubric comes from in our new archieraticon. However, I've been provided with a you-tube clip of a Hierarchical Liturgy at St. George ROCOR parish in Howell, NJ, on St. George's day. It is interesting to note that the protodeacon faces Met. Hilarion with the Gospel at the Little Entrance. Here's the clip.

Dn. Robert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjG1J4atIqQ&feature=related

Since the process of "translation" (my apologies to qualified translators) is not transparent, since the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission does not see fit to submit its work to peer review or to discuss in any detail either its methodology or its scholarly apparatus, one must assume it is an innovation.

Or, at least, it is "borrowed" from elsewhere (i.e. Great Russian usage), since it is not explicit in the traditional "Ruthenian" Slavonic archieratikon.

The problem being the Ruthenian Recension reflects pre-Nikonian Slavic usage. So what do the Old Ritualists do? One might think our hierarchs have an inferiority complex, and feel the need to be Great Russians in order to cease being "Little Russians". And to think of all the times I was castigated for using Russian pronunciation of Slavonic!

Still, one has to remember the mandate of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission, which was simply to provide a complete and accurate translation of the Ruthenian Slavonic recension, not to create a new liturgy or to bring Ruthenian usage into line with that of the Greeks or the Russians. There is a Slavonic Archieretikon for the Ruthenian Churches, and a full and accurate translation of it has already been made. It would be interesting to compare it with that which the IELC invented.

Yes, it has seemed to me to be too often the case of replacing Latinization with Russian-ification (if you will) and/or Hellenization. And who is going to follow the Ruthenian Recension if not the Ruthenians?

What is the source and availability of this translation? Could the translation of the small entrance rubrics, pp 38 to 41, at the least, be obtained?

Regarding the Ruthenian Archieratikon it should be noted, however, that in another current thread (link) it is said:

See my PM to you.

Russification of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches is a constant risk, and has been since the Muskovite Patriarchate came into being.

Russian Imperialism was both civil and religious; it still seems to be so.

As somewhat of an outsider, I've got to ask. What are some examples of Hellenization and Russianification in the Ruthenian Church ?