|
1 members (1 invisible),
678
guests, and
108
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,671
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
I agree that a Bishop has a great deal of control over the celebration of the Liturgy within his diocese. I do not question the authority of a Bishop to say �you must take this litany� or �you will omit this litany� or even �you must take this prayer out loud�. I do, however, question the both the authority of a bishop to rewrite the Liturgy and issue a Liturgicon that is different from the standard used by the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension and, indeed, all other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). I believe that it is wrong for us to change the standard and to separate ourselves from both our fellow Byzantine Catholics of the Ruthenian recension (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Hungarian, etc.) as well as the other Byzantine Churches with whom the Liturgy serves as a point of unity. Could we get authoritative comments on these points? It has not been made clear in the discussions here - either now or a year ago - exactly what will be published. Will it be akin to Bishop's instructions, or will it be a new Liturgy. What will be mandated and what will be the precise form of the mandate? Regarding the degree of uniformity that being considered with these revisions is far stricter than even that in the Latin Church. One look at their Liturgicon shows that the Latins have numerous choices for the major parts of their Mass. Why is it so evil to ask that the traditional Byzantine Liturgy be preserved in its fullness for those parishes that wish to pray it? Of course our uniformity is greater than the Latin church. That is one of the points of the Cardinal. I don't think we should abandon this tradition for Latin practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
I disagree that these changes are �tidying up�. Some are. And some are perhaps more like spring cleaning. If we, like most all other Easterners, no longer dismiss Catechumens then why the paradoxical chanting of the the dismissal of catechumens? For antiquarian purposes? Ditto, for the dismissal of non-communicants. And so forth. But there are no new kitchen cabinets; AFAIK no new texts/actions were created and introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Originally posted by Administrator:
My disagreements on the text here fall into two categories:
1) the purposeful changing of liturgical texts (if the book says �ecumenical pontiff� the text should say �ecumenical pontiff� and not �holy father�)
Admin Dear Sir, On this point I would have to agree with the change. Amongst the Pope's many titles one does not find "ecumenical". This appears to be found only in the books of the Ruthenian Rescension. Fr. Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) attributes this to a hold-over from the days when the church of Rus' was under the Ecumenical Patriarch. The man 'on top' changed, but the books didn't. Fr. Serge also states: The correct Byzantine liturgical title for the Pope, as accepted by the Holy See, appears in the Greek liturgical books published at Grottaferrata, which consistenly style the Pope "our Holy Father N., Pope of Rome."* This form also appears in Byzantine liturgical texts recently published by the Holy See for use in the Pope's presence. The above is taken from "Ukrainian Catholics: Four Translation of the Divine Liturgy, Some Early Translations" as published in LOGOS, Vol. 39 (1998) Nos. 2-4, p 273 (entire article: pp 267-402). Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!* Cf., for example, Η ΘΕΙΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ � La Divine Liturgie de notre P�re S. Jean Chrysostome, Dom Placide de Meester, transl. And ed., (Rome: Typographie Polyglotte Vativane, 1925), p. 78; and Η ΘΕΙΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ La Divina Liturgia del santo nostro Padre Giovanni Crisostomo (Rome, 1967), p. 114.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30 |
KO63AP wrote:
On this point I would have to agree with the change. Amongst the Pope's many titles one does not find "ecumenical". This appears to be found only in the books of the Ruthenian Rescension. Fr. Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) attributes this to a hold-over from the days when the church of Rus' was under the Ecumenical Patriarch. The man 'on top' changed, but the books didn't. Thanks for the post. I think you missed my larger point. As a single Church within a family of Churches we should not unilaterally change the text without consultation and agreement with the rest of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension. There might be considerable merit in allowing this term to remain until full communion is re-established and we again fall under a more logical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. [Although I would hope for a fully recognized Patriarch of Ukraine as well as one for all Byzantines in America.] Also, the 1964 edition of the liturgicon kept the references to the Byzantine emperor. It merely offered a replacement petition for the �civil authorities and all our armed forces�. That is how serious the desire was to be faithful to the original and common text that group of translators was. I believe we must be equally faithful today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Originally posted by Administrator:
Also, the 1964 edition of the liturgicon kept the references to the Byzantine emperor. It merely offered a replacement petition for the �civil authorities and all our armed forces�. That is how serious the desire was to be faithful to the original and common text that group of translators was. I believe we must be equally faithful today. Reminds me of the joke: Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Change?   Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30 |
Originally posted by KO63AP: Reminds me of the joke:
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Change?
Good joke! There is at least some truth in everything that is funny. But it does highlight why we must wait and act together. Unity (and future communion) is important.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Personally I have no problem dropping 'ecumenical' from liturgical referrences to the Pope. I too hope and pray for the reunion of East and West but can't see the point of retaining it because "one day...". Outside of the Ruthenian family of Churches no other churches use it (AFAIK), so this would bring the Byzantine Catholic Church in line with most of the rest of the Catholic Church. I'd call this a bit of "tidying up". It would be nice if all the Ruthenian Churches did this together, but I don't feel it is a major enough of a change to require such co-ordination. Look at the issue of the filioque. This is being dropped on an eparchy by eparchy basis, in both the BCC as well as the UGCC. I don't think anyone would advocate putting it back in until all 'Ruthenian' bishops decide it should be dropped.
OTOH I do agree that any major changes, along with a new translation, should be the result of work of all the Ruthenian, and preferably EC, Churches. The messy bit is agreeing on the finer details of what is 'major' and what is 'minor'.
Just my two cents...
Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!
|
|
|
|
|
