www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catalogue of Latinizations

Father Incognitus,

So sorry! I was busy talking Ukrainian issues with someone while I was preparing supper AND writing - a mistake!

I meant, of course, the L'VIV altar missal - the 1891 Sluzhebnik with tabbed pages like the old Missale Romanum, etc.

Father Deacon,

I'm very sorry if I came across as belitting the work that went into the Ordo (and I was not aware of anyone actually martyed for promoting or using the Ordo, though certainly some of our glorious martyr- and confessor-bishops made it part of their life's work). I merely felt if needed to be pointed out that, no matter what the Oriental Congregation said, the books were never formally promulgated in Pittsburgh and Passaic, that the state of our liturgy has suffered from that omission, and that the bishops' task NOW is to take our Church from a very abbreviated celebration of the liturgical cycle to a fuller one.

While I would be quite happy if they ordered the use of the 1965 Liturgikon, with such changes as the omission of the filioque, for example, and such options as they deem necessary (for example, they might say that EITHER all the petitions of a litany must be taken, OR that the complete prayer of the litany be said aloud, or both if desired; similarly, the Anaphora MUST be taken aloud on Sundays and feasts, and MAY be taken aloud on other days) - while I would be happy if this is done, the distance between what you or I might want to see, and how the liturgy was abbreviated in many places into the 1990's, and still is today, means that SOMETHING ought to be done. And it's the bishops' job, not mine, to decide what. And yes, I keep them in my prayers, because I don't envy them the responsibility.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Of course sans filioque (which actually is only in parenthesis in my copy of the 1965) - but I think otherwise the material, the roadmap, and the "how to" guide are already in place.

As you say it was a large part of many of the Confessor's lives work doing it, who did receive the crown of martyrdom. Thus we who certainly honor their memory should not reduce, eliminate nor pretend their work (in toto) for which they earned the crowns of martyrdom is insignificant.

Prayer for the bishops is very important, and I also pray for them daily.

Prayer for those who took Rome and the work of the Confessors seriously and continue to do so is also important, and I hope and pray there is still a place for those persons within the BCC after all the changes are promulgated. Accdording to Rome, there should be.

I think inclusive language and some other issues go far beyond what you are describing in terms of renewal and taking "our Church from a very abbreviated celebration of the liturgical cycle to a fuller one" and in the end, in the larger sense of lex orandi, lex credendi may actually take us farther from that point in the longer run. Polish up the gold you have before going shopping for some new.

Diak,

I think your statement regarding "bullying" a bit over the top, especially for a cleric. Are you to have us believe that the legitimate actions of the Metropolitan (or any bishop) to regulate divine worship are bullying? As clerics, we may offer advice to the bishop about a particular matter, but once the bishop has decided a course of action, we need to put our personal preferences aside and follow his leadership. (unless, of course, following involves sinful action.)

Diak,

Well said!

This whole liturgical revision is being accomplished by bullying. The people have not asked for it and neither have the clergy. It is a product of a small number of priests (good men with good intentions who are nevertheless wrong in what they are proposing).

I disagree with Father Deacon John on �once the bishop has decided�. If it appears to any faithful Catholic that what the bishops have decided is wrong then that person (or people) has both a right and an obligation to appeal to Rome.

When the official liturgical books and the Ordo Celebrationis of the Ruthenian recension were published (at the request of our bishops) in the 1940�s Pope Pius XII directed us to follow them. Our bishops refused and directed the clergy otherwise.

In 1964/65 Bishop Nicholas Elko published a very good translation of the Divine Liturgy (the one still in use) and then promptly directed his clergy not to follow the official rubrics it contained.

Now we have the bishops about to promulgate a Revised Liturgy that does not agree with the official books of the Ruthenian recension. It greatly modifies the rubrics as published by Rome and as contained in the common books of the Ruthenian recension (and most other recensions). Also, it appears to violate both the spirit of the "Liturgical Instruction for Ap... of Canons of the Eastern Churches" and the inclusive language prohibition contained in � Liturgiam Authenticam [vatican.va] �. Once again our bishops are going to instruct us something other than follow our liturgical tradition.

If and when the bishops promulgate this new Liturgy (text and rubrics) all those who believe that it is in violation of the official books published by Rome, or if they believe it is wrong for our Church, have a responsibility to petition the Holy Father directly for his guidance.

I join Diak in praying for the bishops every day. I pray that the Lord will give them wisdom.

Admin

Because we are stupid. We gaze at our belly button too much. Everyone wants to be a Don Quixote.

So, there's STILL no Catalogue of Latinizations I can order from? Psh! I was hoping to get a L'vov Sluzhebnik and maybe a missal stand to go with it...

Dave

Dear Jeff: there is no 1891 edition of that service book. But I shall take pity upon you to the extent of volunteering the information that what you are referring to is the 1905 L'viv edition, which has been reprinted several times in the twentieth century. It's out of print at the moment but second-hand copies are fairly easy to obtain - you might even be able to get one for free if you ask around the older parishes (since almost no one uses it any more, it's something of a drug on the market).
If you're interested in such things, and you look around persistently, you might even find one or another of the two editions from the nineteenth century - they're quite scarce, but very old parishes sometimes have them tucked away someplace (and there is probably a copy of one or another in the rare book section of the seminary library in Pittsburgh). There are also probably a couple of copies in the Eparchy of Passaic's heritage center but that, alas, is inaccessible since Bishop Michael's retirement - pity; it's a remarkably valuable collection.
If you don't read Church-Slavonic fluently, you might find it easier and better to read Bishop Laurence of Edmonton's book on the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in the Catholic Kievan Metropolia; he gives a good deal of useful information. And it's even in English!

Incognitus

Dear Father,

You are of course correct. My copy says it was authorized by the "provincial synod of L'viv, 1891", though it was actually published in 1905, and while I was sure of the date of the synod, I was not so sure that 1905 represented the FIRST year of publication. Thanks for the correction!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. You were the one who ENCOURAGED me to study Church Slavonic some ten years ago! I still have the e-mail here somewhere...

About the stichera to St Gregory Palamas: they are a rather late addition to the Triodion, and they do not appear in the Old Rite, not because the Old Believers have any problem with the saint, but because they had not been introduced in Russia before the Nikonian "reform."

I doubt that they were found in most copies of the Triodion used in Greek Catholic or Orthodox churches in the Rzeczpospolita or in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1720.

And if they were not, the Synod of Zamosc did not cause them to be removed, but prevented their being added to new editions, and hindered the use of Nikonian editions containing them.

I would not want to argue that Rusyn tradition requires that they be omitted; only that it is not necessarily the case that a book without them cannot be Orthodox and must be Greek Catholic instead. It could be looked upon as an indirect Latinization, but it could also be just old-fashioned Orthodox with no Latin influence involved.

Stephen

Dear Jeff,
Thank you! It's always pleasant to know that someone has actually taken my advice and profited by it!
Ten years ago, though, was before the publication of the English-language Church-Slavonic grammar from Jordanville - so my present advice is to get a copy and put it to good use. Excellent book.
By the way, good things are being published these days in Church-Slavonic in Russia, and the nice part is that the prices are amazingly low.
Thank you again; you've brought real joy to my heart even at this hour of the morning. Someday maybe we can have a gathering of modern-day Church-Slavophiles! We must, of course, plan to share an Imperial Torte on that happy occasion.

Incognitus

Fr. Deacon John, as a cleric perhaps a bit of caution should be exercised in judgement of character and intentions. What I mentioned was simply following our Typikon, which was accompanied by threats of reporting to my bishop, was accompanied by being accused publically of being untruthful. I think that indeed is not beyond the term "bullying". Nor was the individual proffering that treatment in the hieararchy.

I certainly admit my sinfulness, realizing we all can look inward and find ways we are sinful and need to repent.

If, however, by "sinful" you specifically mean retaining, guarding, defending and celebrating traditions that are properly received and allowed in our Typikon, which have been properly and officially promulgated for our larger welfare by Rome, I say I am in good company at the table of sinners and have no intention of repenting for that particular "sin".

By the way, how are your Old Testament readings at Vespers going (which are not in any Metropolitan vespers books?) I think that is a great idea - was it yours?

To clarify, I am referring to your use of the Old Testmanet Paremia at a regular Saturday Night Great Vespers, as indeed various Festal Vespers books in use throughout the Metropolia do make allowance for the traditional Paremia at Vespers. I applaud this restoration, while it is not specifically approved by any episcopal decree.

Father Deacon Diak:

Thank you very much for that clarification. I had just forgotten the postings here taht you refer to, and would agree that that there was a bullying tone. (But there was also an apology IIRC.) Without that memory jog, I am sorry to say that I, like others posting here, were confused that it might have referred more broadly to Episcopal oversight. Thanks again.

Diak,

It appears I misunderstood your post. If your "bullying" comment was not made in reference to the official promulgation of the Annunciation/Good Friday text by the Metropolitan, I apologize.

My commment:

was made as a general statement. It had nothing to do with the Typicon. I am sorry if that was not clear. I've never equated following the Typicon as a sin. I will say this though, if the liturgical directives of my bishop are ever in conflict with the Typicon, out of obedience I will follow the directives of the bishop.

Diak,

the resource, i.e., the Scriptural citations, was provided in the Petras' Typicon as optional readings. With the celebrant's permission I merely followed the option and read one of the OT Paremia as a reader. It has not been continued since my diaconal ordination.