www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are EC & EO Liturgies different here?

Synod of Zamosc (in Ukrainian: Zamost', Zamist',
Zamistia, Zamostia) was celebrated in 1720, not
in 1920, so:

1) there was no "Ukrainian Metropolia", but
Ruthenian (!), i.e. Byelorussian and Ukrainian,
Metropolia of Kiev and Halych;
2) mentioned Metropolia had 8 eparchies - metropolitan eparchy of Kiev (actually, Kiev was
already abroad), eparchies of Polotsk, Turiv-Pinsk, Kholm-Belz, Lutsk-Ostrih, Peremyshl-Sambir-Syanik, Lviv, Volodymyr-Berestia;
3) eparchy of Stanyslaviv was created 165 years
AFTER the Synod of Zamosc.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Subdeacon Peter,

Thanks for the correction, I got my Synods mixed up. I was thinking of the Synod of Lviv. My point, however, remains the same and is reflected in the letter of Eugene Cardianl Tisserant, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches to Ruthenian Ordinaries announcing the promulgation of the Ordo Celebrationis: The Eparcy of Mukachevo was not represented at the Synod of Zamost therefore its liturgical prescriptions never had the force of law in Mukachevo or any of the eparchies descended from it and the bishops of these eparchies could dispense from these prescriptions on their own. At the time the Ordo Celebrationis was published the only eparchies were the Synod of Zamost's prescriptions had the force of law (and required the Holy See's approval for dispensing from them) were the Archeparchy of Lviv, and Eparchies of Peremysl and Stanislaviv.

In Christ,
Lance

Certains aspects of the Synod of Zamosc were later upheld by Ruthenian Bishop Daniel Evancho who asked for specific variances from the Ordo Celebrationis, some of which were enacted or inspired by Zamosc. Some of these can still be found in celebrations of the Ruthenian DL in some places.

Subdeacon Randolph,

I do not think all the Latinizations and variances are from the Synod of Zamost. I think some were adopted by the Synod of Lviv, and others were from the 1905 Lviv Liturgicon. I am under the impression more and more were adopted as time went on. Bishop Daniel asked for 23 variances, of which he was granted 10 and none of these dealt with the four main prescriptions of the Synod of Zamost: prohibition of the sponge, prohibition of teplota, insertion of the Filioque, and commemoration of the Pope in the litanies. With the exception of commemorating the Pope, Ruthenian bishops were free to dispose of the former three at their discretion, although none did until recent times as far as I know. Bishop Daniel resigned before offically promulgating the Ordo and Bishop Nicholas recalled it and required the continued use of the 1905 Lviv Liturgicon rubrics. This in fact contiues to this day in some parishes.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance, I didn't state that all of the Latinizations asked for by Bishop Daniel were from Zamosc, but that he upheld certain aspects of Zamosc. You are correct, some of these are also from L'viv, but to a large extent the spirit of the Ruthenian liturgical latinzations was inspired by Zamosc.

And by the way, more of these latinizations than the 10 "officially sanctioned" were implemented or maintained by Bishop Daniel, including the sponge and other prescriptions from Zamosc we have mentioned, some of which are still present in our churches. He did also continue to uphold the forced recitation of the Filoque, prohibition of sponge and teplota. As far as I can tell, he allowed nearly if not all 23 of his requested latinized variances, although he was only officially allowed ten of these.

I have met more than one older Ruthenian priest, most of them retired, who when offered a sponge (I always keep a few on hand to give out ) responded with "I will never have a sponge on my altar".

But on a positive note, the return of some parishes of the Ruthenian tradition to the proper celebration of the Ordo Celebrationis is a promising sign. In fact one Ukrainian priest I know told me outright recently, "Zamosc is dead". Not dead, I think, but hopefully dying.

Dear Diak,

Christ is Risen!

What is the reasoning behind the rejection of the sponge by these men?

Tony

Dear Tony, unfortunately some of these older priests consider the Latinized locals councils to have almost the same emphasis as as ecumenical council...theology was often invented and taught in the semanaries to justify these innovations.

An interesting but dated look at the changes in the Ruthenian Rite can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia site:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13277a.htm

It mentions the suppression of the sponge. I suppose the rationale was that it was considered unseemly? (Probably just as the Zeon or Infant Communion were considered unseemly--similarly, many B C's still consider the distribution of blessed bread during Communion time as something not quite proper...even though it is nearly universal in Byzantine Orthodoxy.)

Back to the prayer in question: "Wash away, O Lord..." Could it be then that this part of the prayer is supposed to be part of the Ruthenian rescension but the prayer before it in the Russian text ("Having beheld...") is not?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David:

In support of your "unseemly" conjecture, I wish to add the Scriptural passage that seems to be most pertinent:

Matt 27:48-50 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink. The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

John

Fr Deacon Ed wrote:

Thank you, Fr Deacon Ed, for the info. Just wondering...I've only visited one Melkite parish before so I'm unfamiliar with Melkite customs. Do most Melkite parishes use the traditional prosphora loaf for Liturgy? Or, do some Melkites also use pre-cut cubed pieces like some Ruthenian parishes do?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I would add that older Ruthenian priests remember the extremely difficult period of the 1930's when their parishes were split over the celibacy issue. Those who left became "Orthodoc" and contested Catholic parishes for church properties in the courts. Lives were threatened. For a Catholic clergyman to use a sponge, or wear a beard, or use a kadilo with bells was to do what the "enemy" did (heaven forbid!). The bitterness still lingers in those who lived through the ordeal, for both sides.
May time heal, and time will need to take at least one more generation to do so.

Dear Tony,

The subject of the sponge fascinated me and some of the commentary I once came across concerning this matter (Irenaeus Nazarko, OSBM etc.) suggested that the use of the liturgical sponge was disrespectful in some way (?).

Diak's comment about the priests saying they would never have a sponge reminds me of our former, Rome-grown parish priest who refused to have the washing of the feet rite on Holy Thursday.

In both cases, the priests in question seem to want to supercede scripture and the actual experience of OLGS Jesus Christ!

Alex

Dear Diak,

I would certainly hope that Zamosc is no longer applicable and that we may return to our Orthodox liturgical traditions once and for all!

In describing the Synod of Zamosc, Fr. I. Nazarko, OSBM (+ memory eternal!) suggested that the task of the Church then was to "bring in Catholic practices."

And he suggested that these practices were "Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament" and a number of other Latin practices.

That Synod, if I'm not mistaken, also forbade the use of Orthodox liturgical texts by Eastern Catholic priests - they had to use texts published and approved by their bishops (and even though the texts themselves could be identical).

What I've noticed in terms of priests who follow strict Orthodox liturgical traditions is that our people are less likely to murmur against them if they are from Ukraine.

We had a priest from there who vested in the middle of the Church etc. and took his time .

If one of our own priests did that, you could bet your "hrivni" that there would have been comment.

(Perhaps they think that the priests from Ukraine "don't know any better?" ).

Alex

Clearly, Zamosc has been replaced by the "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Cod of Canons of the Eastern Churches" Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Rome 1996; and the official Liturgical books published for the Ruthenian Recension in Rome.

Bless me a sinner, Venerable Father in Carmel!

However, the "spirit of Zamosc" lives on with respect to this or that practice, such as the "no sponges" attitude and such.

And it would seem that some of our Religious Orders, like the Basilians, feel that such liturgical reforms and new documents as you cited is "something that happens to other people" in our Church.

Finally, you are a Byzantine Carmelite, Venerable Father.

May I ask how the life of a Byzantine Carmelite priest differs from that of a Latin one?

Alex