Does anyone know where I can find any information on this Synod? Ideally I'm looking for the actual text of the Synod's decrees(?), but just about anything would be helpful. I can handle Ukrainian or English with no problem, though I can sloooowly plough through most Slavic languages with the help of a dictionary or two.

Andrij

While I do not have the original text the Synod codified and received approval from Rome for the following:

1. Forbade the use of the sponge for cleansing the chalice.
2. Forbade the infusion of teplota (hot water)into the chalice before communion.
3. Required insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed.
4. Required commeration of the Pope during the Liturgy.

Although eventully adopted by all Ruthenian Recension Byzantine Churches, the Synod of Zamosc' liturgical prescriptions only had the force of law in the Acheparchy of Lviv and its suffragan Eparchies of Peremysl and Stanislaviv. The current Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches and the Liturgical Instruction from the Code abolishes the first three innovations but still requires the commeration of the Pope.

While the Synod did call for these innovations they also forbade any others and did in fact help prevent more drastic Latinizations that some were calling for.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

You go, Big Guy, you go!

Er, that was a very insightful analysis and summary of the key points of that Synod.

Until that synod took place, the Pope was only commemorated by the Eastern Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv while all other bishops and priests only commemorated the Metropolitan. To be "in union with Rome" was to be in union with the Metropolitan who was in union with Rome.

Zamoysc (where did you guys get "Zamosc?") introduced the dual commemoration of the Pope at the Great Entrance and immediately following the Eucharistic Canon.

As late as 1893, this was adhered to until the requirement to commemorate the Pope four times in the liturgy came around. I have the Stauropeghial prayerbook from L'viv that omits the pope's commemoration during the first Litany of the Divine Liturgy.

Fr. Keleher, when he was in Toronto, commemorated the Pope in his Liturgies according to Zamoysc, that is, twice as noted above.

He once told me he only did that because the Bishop wanted him to.

In reality, he said, that was a commemoration of the Pope "twice more than had to be."

Alex

Alex:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13277a.htm
Ruthenian Rite
... the Greek Ruthenian clergy in the Synod of Zamosc (1720) made a number of changes in the Byzantine Rite, particularly that of the Mass, so as more clearly to express the unity and identity of their faith with that of their brethren of the Roman Rite.

http://www.kostomloty-parafia-unicka.siedlce.opoka.org.pl/obrzadek_e.htm
The Byzantine - Slavic Rite in Poland
I. The Byzantine - Slavic rite in its Ukrainian version.
...Some of these changes...were codified and rendered universally obligatory for members of the "Uniate Church" by the Synod of Zamosc in 1720.

I believe the same spelling is used in other texts I've read, such as the book on the Ukrainian liturgy by Fr. Demetrius Wysochansky (sorry, I forget the title - it's a little paperback) that goes into detail on the background & results of the Zamosc synod.

[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

Alex,

"Zamość" with a diacritic on the s and the c...is the current name of the city in Poland. It may have been called something else in the past but it is now Zamosc. A site from Poland that shows this is: http://www.zamosc.pl/

Similarly, t seems that L'viv is now called L'viv and lo longer L'vov or Lemberg. It seems to me that it is only proper to refer to place names in the modern usage, referring to former usages/names is oftentimes helpful but can also be confusing and may serve some ideology that is not conducive to the point being made.

Bob

Dear Bob,

I wasn't thinking of any ideology, nationalistic or otherwise, but simply of the name of the Synod that was held in that place at the time when Zamosc was "Zamoysc."

While Zamosc is part of Poland today, "Zamoysc" was its name when it was under Poland and therefore part of the Polish Kingdom at the time of the famous Synod.

The fact is that "Zamosc" is a Polonized form of the Ruthenian "Zamoysc" as occurred with many other place-names that are now formally part of Poland.

It is still referred to by its East Slavic transliteration in languages other than English. Precedents for this are set when we refer to "Constantinople" and to the Patriarch of same.

As for "L'viv" or "L'vov," the fact is that this city was, for years, referred to, in the English language, by its Latin name "Leopolis" and, today especially, residents are popularly referred to in English as "Leopolitans."

But comparing Zamosc with L'viv is like comparing apples to oranges. The former is a colonized and now formally annexed part of the state that did the colonizing. The latter's name change reflected a return to its original, ancestral roots.

The struggle against colonialism characterizes much of Eastern European history. Something similar happened, I believe, in the American Revolution . . .

Alex

The official text is Latin and was published several times, for instance in:

Synodus Provincialis Ruthenorum habita in civitate Zamosciae anno MDCCXX, editio tertia
(3rd edition), Romae 1883.

Sincerely,

subdeacon Peter (dlia Vas, p. Andriju, piddyjakon
Petro )

Any evidence, please?



Ditto (I mean "Zamoysc", not that it was in Polish
Crown ).



Ruthenians-Ukrainians called Zamosc "Zamostya",
"Zamistya", "Zamost'" or "Zamostye". The older Polish spelling would be "Zamoscie", which means
(just like Ukrainian "Zamostya/Zamistya" or
older "Zamostye") "place on another side of a bridge".
"Zamoysc" was probably never used by anyone excluding our dear friend Alex the Orthodox Catholic.



BTW, Zamosc was a rare example of a city built
"wholesale", not just been evolving. "The Great
Chancellor" Jan (John) Zamoyski had founded the city and fortress at the end of sixteenth century according to the plan of an Italian architector Bernardo Morando. He was the first "Ordynat"
(Ordinate?) of Zamosc. "Ordynacja Zamojska"
was a complex of estates indivisible: they remained all in the hands of one person. "Ordynat" had no right to divide "Ordynacja". The last heir of the fortune
(which was confiscated by the communists in 1944), Count Jan Zamoyski, the 16th "Ordynat"
died at the end of June this year and was buried on July 4th (?) in the Cathedral in Zamosc.
His son, Count Marcin (Martin) Zamoyski, has regained a little part of family estates and was
for a few years: 1) elected mayor of the city
of Zamosc, 2) appointed the governor of Zamosc district, 3) elected chairman of Zamosc City Council (not at the same time, of course ).
So even at present Count Zamoyskis COUNT in Zamosc .

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Thank you all for your replies.




Too bad I've forgotten just about all the Latin I learned in High School. Maybe I should brush up...

Andrij

P.S. for piddyiakon Petro:
Bud' laska ne hovorit' na mene "Vy"! Ya niiakyi pan a prostyi, molodyi khlop!

Dear Petro,

First of all, I only used "Zamoysky" in reference to the Synod.

(Thanks for backing me up, dear Ukrainian colleague - it's nice to know we can always count on one another, isn't it? and it's too bad these smileys don't come in blue and yellow so we can be really patriotic with one another ).

And there is nothing in what you have stated in so learned a fashion that would convince me otherwise.

Me and my Basilian buddies stand together on this!

(Don't you have something better to do than get involved in a discussion regarding a word? Your talent is wasted here. You should become part of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission! ).

And if I am the only one to use that word, at least, then, one person has got it right!

Alex

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Hey, you devotees of Zamostya, Zamosc, Zamoysca, etc. how about this for blue and yellow smilies:



[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

Dear Piotr,

I checked Dr. Kubiyovich's encyclopedia and some other sources and they list the Synod as the "Zamoysky" Synod.

So you can take up your fight with the Ukrainian academic community.

Let me know who wins . . .

Alex

Dear Diak,

I like it!

Slava Ukrayini!

Alex

What about devotees of New York, New Jerk, New Pork and so on?

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

First of all, you should re-read your own posts
(no. 3 and 6) in order to notice two things:

1) you were writing about the city name, which - as you insisted - in 1720 had been "Zamoysc";
2) in fact, in BOTH posts you even didn't use
the word "Zamoysky".



An what about you? "Don't you have something better to do than" begin such a discussion? Who was the beginner? Obviously you, with your "correction" of four people ("where did you guys get >Zamosc


I can only


Sincerely,

subdeacon Peter