www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology When does the fast end and the feast begin?

Then you are at odds with the CCEO:

Canon 657

1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs ; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.

2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris .

3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, 1.

4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, 1. (emphases added)

Here's Canon 40, 1:

1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind,however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.

The CCEO recognizes the right of a metropolitan church sui iuris to make changes in its liturgical services. From your frequent posts on the subject you have continued to call for a collective effort of Byzantine Churches and/or those Churches of the Ruthenian Recension. According to the CCEO there is no requirement for our Church to do so. One can certainly question whether a particular change in liturgical texts meets the test of Canon 40, 1, but that is wholly different than denying our Church has a right to make changes to the liturgical texts.

Father John,

Thanks for the post.

Canon 657 does not speak specifically to changes in liturgical texts. It does, in number 4, refer to Canon 40 (which you quoted):

Canon 40, 1: �Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.�

�[T]o see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite� means just what it says. Our bishops have a responsibility to keep our liturgical books faithful to the Byzantine-Ruthenian rite and the official liturgical books their predecessors asked Rome to prepare for us. They also have a responsibility to see that the Divine Services are celebrated faithfully and accurately. The rubrical changes currently mandated in several of our eparchies (and which are part of the proposed Revised Liturgy) are not an �accurate observance of [our] own rite�. [Our sui iuris status does not equate a separate liturgical �rite� specifically for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh.]

[N]ot admit[ting] changes in it except by reason of its organic progress means not mandating change that is not organic. It is possible that all of the rubrical changes that have been proposed will someday be regarded as organic. Can anything that needs to be mandated in order to be accomplished be considered organic growth? �Organic� means incorporating changes that have developed naturally and accepted over time. The history of Byzantine liturgy is almost exclusively one of documenting changes that have been long in use. That is the precedent. Mandating change that has not been widely accepted or embraced is hardly �organic�.

�Keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians� means looking towards what is happening in our sister Byzantine Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. How does a vastly different Liturgy in a Ruthenian Church than in the Ukrainian Church across the street contribute either �mutual goodwill� or the �unity of Christians�? How do these changes serve the quest for unity with Orthodoxy?

We will have to agree to disagree on this. In the quotes you have given I do not see any authority given to the hierarchs of a sui iuris Church to revise the liturgical texts away from what is already ours. In fact, what you quoted seems to make clear that we must cooperate with the other Churches at the proper level.

Even though we are a sui iuris Church we do share the �Rite� referenced in Canon 40,1 with others. We share the �Byzantine� part of the rite (the high level) with all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox. We share the �Ruthenian� part (detailed level) of the rite with our fellow (ethnic) Ruthenians in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. We also share the �Ruthenian� part with the other members of the Ruthenian Recension: Ukrainians, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks and others. This is why I consistently call for us to work with the other Churches at the appropriate levels (Church-wide, recension).

Canon 40, 1 does not give our hierarchs permission to do whatever they want to do with the Liturgy. It clearly lays down guidelines that call them to be faithful to what is already ours and what we share with others. Organic changes (natural development over time) simply cannot be legislated in advance.

Admin

You may certainly be correct in all that you posted above, but what I take issue with is your post which states, "I disagree that we have the right to revise the Divine Services."

To clarify I never inferred by my post that the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs can "do whatever they want to do with the Liturgy." The canons I have cited clearly contemplates that a sui iuris Church has a right to make changes to its liturgical texts taking canon 40, 1, into consideration. I'll post my qualifier again:
Since I certainly do not possess the competence required by the CCEO to determine whether any liturgical changes meet the test of canon 40, 1, I can neither affirm nor deny that all that you have posted was followed or is even required to meet the test of canon 40, 1. All that you have posted may be a prudent course to follow, but given the language of the canon 657 it is within the competence of the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs and the review of the Apostolic See to determine whether any changes meet the test of canon 40, 1. So as I previously stated, you are at odds with the CCEO, or at a minimum, you hold a position in opposition to those the Church has decided are competent to make changes to our liturgical texts, namely, the metropolitan with the council of hierarchs and the Apostolic See.

Father John,

Thanks for your posts. Your most recent post put things more clearly. I will agree that the council of hierarchs can issue liturgical books that are different (in some sense) than the current ones. So, you are correct and I am incorrect on the exact letter of the law. But this definition quite clearly severely limits that change to what is already part of our �Rite� which we share with others at different levels (local Church, recension, entire Byzantine Church) or what has developed organically (with limits on what is considered organic).

I have discussed these canons with a few canon lawyers over the past few years. Canon 657 does not stand on its own because it specifically references Canon 40,1. Canon 40,1 places very strict limits on what type of change can be introduced, the only change that can be introduced being that which is already ours or has developed organically. So the bishops have the right to publish liturgical books which are different then the current ones, but they may not change the Liturgy away from the official sources (the generic Byzantine Ruthenian Rite documented in the official books published by Rome).

And just how many angels sit on the head of a pin?

There is another point we have not really discussed. The canon lawyers I have discussed this with were of mixed opinion on how the bishops may document change. Since we share the Byzantine Liturgy with many others it is quite possible that the scope of their authority is limited to producing an exact text of the official Ruthenian texts and then publishing a �General Instruction� type of document on how the Liturgy is to be celebrated.

Time will tell, of course. I still recommend that we place a hold on the current translations and that the eparchies which have issued mandates to change the rubrics withdraw them (so that priests may celebrate the fullness of the received and official Ruthenian Liturgy). Then I�d like to see all the Byzantines get together to prepare common translations of everything, using the hard work of our liturgical commission as a starting point but avoiding such things as inclusive language and rubrical changes. That is something I would greatly support. In the meantime, I would also support a reprinting of the current �Red Book� updated only to correct those things that qualify as errors.

This thread is way off topic and I have contributed to taking it off topic. For that I apologize!

Admin