www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Far Back To Roots Do We Need To Go?

A number of services that we Byzantine Catholics celebrate are shortened from their counterparts further east. More than once I have been reminded that it is because the services would be too long in their earlier forms for our modern age. I am wondering whether returning to earlier forms would be regarded as being in keeping with the recommendations of "Orientale Lumen" or not. How far back ought we to go? Examples of shortened services I am aware of include our Divine Liturgies and the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, for starters. What is everyone's take on the matter of getting back to our roots in worship services themselves?

We don�t really need to go back that far at all. At the request of our bishops back in the 1940�s (both here and in Europe) the Vatican prepared a full set of liturgical books for the Ruthenian recension and published them in Church Slavonic. The research was first rate and the books are correct and complete (i.e., no latinizations). All we really need to do is to faithfully translate them into English and celebrate the Divine Services as we have received them (to date only the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil have been translated and promulgated). In Ukraine the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church translated these books into modern Ukrainian and they are now the normative liturgical books for that Church (which also shares the Ruthenian recension). Some of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches also use that translation (but those of the Moscow Patriarchate follow the Russian usage).

Regarding the length of the services, there has always been a difference in monastic and parochial forms. Parishes would often abbreviate psalms and omit certain hymns while monasteries would take a more full form. Greek Orthodox parishes, for example, seldom take actual Scripture verses for the antiphons and usually omit all the litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn.

Orientale Lumen [vatican.va] doesn't address liturgy specifically but one could consider the general gist of it to be that we should restore our traditional forms of liturgical prayer. The Liturgical Instruction tells us specifically that we must restore it and live it before revising it (and then only to revise to match the rest of Orthodoxy).

Well then, where do American Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenians), as opposed to Ukrainian Catholics, find the translations in English? Is there a difference in translations? (I am not aware of a recent English translation's being published in the U.S. like you describe that is generally available, only versions prior to 1996.)

Dear Jim,

The service books wouldn't have a Catholic (in communion with Rome) impratur, but the Orthodox have translated almost everything into English.

Most of their seminaries have a "press" which sells such translations.

In Christ.

The publications of other jurisdictions are not used for services by the laity in the Byzantine Catholic churches in America as far as I know. Books approved for parish use include the books of the Sisters of St. Basil, but they predate the Instructions. They include a Matins book, Vespers, Festal Menaion, Pentecostarian, and the Triodion. These sources were uniquely suited to the Byzantine congregations, however. I would assume that other jurisdictions have constraints on what they use or don't use as well, in order to maintain Orthodoxy itself. What interests me now is when the Instruction will be fulfilled for us in printed updates. The works of the Sisters are not currently in alignment with service books of other jurisdictions, as far as I know.

I�m sorry if I was unclear.

Most of the Ruthenian Recension books have not yet been translated into English and the only official ones are those texts for the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil. The Gospel Book and the Apostol are modeled after the Latin style of arranging books because they are not the compete texts pointed for reading but instead excerpts for each day of the year. Very useful, but a notable change from our tradition.

The Sisters of St. Basil in Uniontown have published several books (for Vespers and Matins as well as the Menaion, Triodion and Pentecostarion). They are all unofficial and for the private use of that community but they are available for purchase and over the years have become the standard in our Church. Not all of them are translated from the official Ruthenian recension books. Some are translations from French editions based upon Greek editions. This means that there are some differences in rubrics and texts. One of the plusses is that the translations employ modern American English. One of the drawbacks is that they employ the use of inclusive language (which is very trying at times).

As Andrew pointed out you can obtain complete collections published by the various Orthodox Churches. The St. John of Kronstadt Press edition is very complete but is expensive (over $1,000!) but very complete. It employs Elizabethan English. You can find more information on translations at Liturgical Chant: Introduction & Resources . You can also find a lot on the web, especially at www.anastasis.org.uk [anastasis.org.uk] .

The texts from other jurisdictions are used within the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church but mostly when the needed text is not provided in one of the books published by the Sisters of St. Basil.

The Instruction asks us to restore our own unique Ruthenian usage, which is slightly different from either the Russian or Greek usages. Eventually we will see the publishing of English translations of the official Ruthenian liturgical books but, in the mean time, we make due with what is available. The Sisters of St. Basil texts are generally more then enough for parishes with a regular celebration of Great Vespers and/or Matins for Sundays and feast days. They are popular enough that they are even used in many Orthodox parishes.

Well, there's your answer, Jim. We only need to go back to 1944 when the Ordo Celebrationis for the Ruthenian Recension was promulgated. We're not talking about implementing Athonite vigils and all of that. Just doing what we were already supposed to do.

Blessed Metropolitan Sheptytsky prophetically saw the looming clouds of the conflict between the latinizers and the vostochniks (easternizers). He wisely made completing the Ordo a priority, enlisting such confreres as Father Cyril Korolevsky for the editing and translation and soliciting the input of many good Eastern liturgists across Europe.

And Blessed Andrey insisted Rome promulgate the Ordo because he knew that sadly some of his own bishops would not obey him and follow his Ordo because they felt it was too "Byzantine" and thus somehow not "Catholic". If the seal came from Rome even the most latinized bishops would therefore be compelled to follow.

When Blessed Metropolitan Andrey was handed a copy of the completed Ordo with Rome's seal of promulgation, he crossed himself, kissed it, and was heard to say "Lord now you can let Your servant depart in peace". He died not long thereafter. Now you know the rest of the story.

The Ordo is a real gem and due to the work of Father Matthew Berko and more recently Father Serge Keleher and Jack Figel we have the Ordo in English available to all clergy to study and follow.

The abbreviations that are used in many parishes that have been mentioned on this and many threads on the Forum are actually recent developments of the last 50 years or so which have sadly evolved into a kind of liturgical minimalism. But the tide seems to be turning away from this minimalist spirit in many places.

One aspect that needs to be reiterated in implementing any kind of liturgical "revival" is catechetical preparation of the people so they will understand why the services are changing, becoming longer, etc.

Diak, I especially appreciate your response. Corporate worship is what it's all about, to me. As a lay person I wish there were more I could do when it comes to corporate worship. I know people who content themselves with private praying of some of the non-liturgical services, because their parishes don't offer as much corporate worship as they would like to be involved in. I pray we can expand our corporate worship, and not worry so much about minimalism. After all, the worship in the hereafter doesn't run an hour or so, it lasts forever. Starting now as a community to make it never-ending seems like a good idea. Not necessarily practical from a hectic modern-day point of view, but practical for later.

Dear Jim,

How far back do we need to go? Not far. The books were published in Rome not so long ago. The difficulty is that a very very small portion of that treasure has been translated into English. The normative books are in Slavonic still. None of the 'official' books are shortened in any way. Rome has always forbidden this.

So far, there is no official (published) support from Rome for the shortening of our services. That this 'abbreviation' is common in many parishes (Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic) does not reflect the official books. A look at the official Liturgicon will show the complete Liturgy. Other texts which exist in our Church have been serving us well (cf. the Uniontown books, Msgr. Levkullic's books, various editions of music and pew books etc.) but these are unofficial, and were privately printed. These were heroic efforts and were very welcome indeed. But they have not completely provided for what will eventually be needed, and that is an approved and official English edition of the complete set of service books.

Translation is an important task, since most of the official books so far exist only in Slavonic. It is a big problem, not only in our Church, but in the Orthodox Churches too. Faithfully translating liturgical texts is a thankless task, fraught with controversy and dispute. I attended some conferences of translators of liturgical texts, and though polite, there was more passion, dispute and disagreement there than in the U.N. Security Council. Another example of the current controversy is to witness the all out 'war' in the Roman Church between supporters of ICEL and the new norms for translation issued by Rome.

These new Roman instructions are hated by some, but their call to faithfully, accurately translate the normative texts, resisting the temptation to revise, edit, alter or otherwise 'improve' the official text is a welcome directive to many of us 'in the ranks'. Some liberal translators see this as a straight-jacket, restricting their 'creative' abilities, and denying them the opportunity to interpolate their interpretations and ideas.

We will never be able to agree on such questions, and my conservative opinions are well known. Many would disagree with me, and have done so publicly here and elsewhere. In the end, my feeling is that only a strict and careful fidelity to the normative texts will unite all. I hope that the new norms for translation, will decide these questions.

So "my take" on getting back to our roots, involves only the acceptance of the Slavonic books Rome has published for us, we need do no other digging than that, and their complete, careful, accurate and artful translation into English will complete the job. That however, is no small task.

I do not think that the practice of printing the selected pericope for each day is exclusively Latin. I believe that the Greek practice is to do just that. Most if not all Greek Altar Gospels and Apostolos are arranged in this way. In English, you can see this style in several editions (the Antiochian RSV edition, the Holy Cross Seminary edition, the good ole' Bishop Fan Noli books, the latest translation from Holy Dormition Skete).

I do not know if the "continuous read" style is the traditional format for the Ruthenian recension, but a "lectionary style" is indeed common in the Byzantine tradition.

-Dave

If I am not mistaken Fr. David Petras made the point that the Rome Gospel and Apostolos for the Ruthenians does indeed follow the Greek pattern in spite of being in Slavonic. The Slavonic texts of those books follow a continuous read. If, again, I remember correctly his opinion was that the older pre-Rome books would have been like all other Slavonic books and had a continuous reading not pericopes.

We need to get away from this notion that we have to create all of these new translations. While some translation work is definitely necessary it seems almost competative sometimes to see who and how many can do their own translations of the same services with the same basic texts in the same tradition.

The OCA and ROCOR have done marvelous work in translating the Slavonic service books into English. The complete Menaion will be ready in a year or so from the translation work of Isaac Lambertsen, who did such a fine job on the complete Slavonic Octoechos also available from St. John of Kronstadt Press.

It is completely acceptable to use Orthodox translations of the liturgical texts. I have been doing that for years. No sense of "reinventing the wheel" if a translation is good, singable and already available.

Dear Jim,

If you lived in the Eastern Eparchy of Canada of the UGCC, one answer to your question would be "go back to the Ukrainian language in the services!"

Also, your question would be answered differently by different people who understand their roots in specific ways.

I recently heard a sermon given by a priest in our Church who talked about returning to our traditions . . .

And which traditions in particular?

The traditions of kneeling for Communion, Stations of the Cross, Rosary before the Liturgy etc.!

For him, and for others I know, these are the traditions that represent our (Latinized) roots.

For them, what is truly Eastern is not only foreign, but smacks of heresy and schism.

My aunt called me last night and told me she had a "Three Bar Orthodox Cross" that she wanted to send to Patriarch Lubomyr for his birthday.

"It's all right to send something like that, isn't it? she asked

(I said it was . . .).

Dr. John has always preached the doctrine of Eastern Church education and that is most important.

A return to our roots is really meaningless without a deep "consciousness raising" of awareness of the "why" and "what" of those traditions among our people, first and foremost.

Otherwise, when we say "let's go back to our traditions," we'll have the "smorgasbord" of Latin/Byzantine thingies that are sometimes very noticeable . . .

Alex

I think it does depend on which Byzantine Church you are a member of, and which Eparchy, when it comes to what reference materials are approved for general use in community services.

I am familiar with many orthodox sources from St. Tikhon's, St. Vladimir's, St. John of Kronstadt Press, etc. which are all fine. Some are superior translations, depending on your point of view.

Monastics have to use multiple sources if they are to observe as complete a cycle of worship as possible, but the parishes seldom do regardless of jurisdiction. It is not cost-effective, and the parishes often do not have the manpower available to mount a full cycle of services, which can be very time-consuming to prepare. Even so, orthodox everywhere usually pray by the old baba's principle of "We don't leave nothin' out!", an endearing comment made when she was asked about all the litanies by a visitor. But there are constraints for community services.

How does the Church educate its members that more really is better?

As a Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) parishioner within the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I think we have room for more services and for more within each service, because I have experienced both in other jurisdictions. An extreme example would be Liturgy at Nevsky Cathedral in Paris, France, where we got to the Gospel at the end of the second hour of the Liturgy. And historically, ambassadors from Russia to Constantinople went to services at Hagia Sophia that lasted at least 6 hours. Their reaction was they didn't know whether they were in heaven or on earth. While I'm not advocating 6 hour worship services, I do think we have a ways to go. Historically, more is better among the orthodox, and there have to be ways to get the laity more involved to make it happen from the ground up.