www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology BC Divine Liturgy

Friends, my question is not what is right or wrong (although that can be an issue) but rather what is the genesis of the differences. I checked some sources briefly this afternoon and found in a Serbian source all of "Having beheld..." "Shine, shine..." and "O Christ, great and holy Pascha..." but no "wash away O Lord..."

In an Antiochian source I found the "wash away" but not the others.

I will start a new thread with what I think the issue is for me. I hope some will deign to participate.

Bob

Today I was able to grab the new Johnstown diocese pew book/liturgikon. It has the "Having behld the resurrection..." and "Wash away, O Lord..."

At the "Save Your people..." the priest blesses with the chalice in a cross-wise fashion. This is what I remember among the Ruthenian BCs as well.

Bob,

Thanks for making this clear. Some of your posts read as if you believe that the customs of the Ruthenian Churches are always lacking while those of the other Orthodox Churches are always perfect. There are many times in which the Ruthenian Church has preserved the more ancient customs better than any of the other Byzantine Churches.

--

Regarding "Save Your people, O God�." the 1964 Ruthenian liturgicon is rather confusing since it states that "the priest goes to the holy altar, and places the holy gifts upon the altar. The priest blesses the people with the holy chalice in the form of a cross, intoning: 'Save Your people, O God, and bless Your inheritance.'" The Ordo states that "Following the Communion, he leaves the spoon in the chalice and returns to the altar upon which he places the diskos and chalice. Then he covers the latter with the small veil, again takes the chalice and, turning towards the people, bless them with it, saying: "Spasi Boze�"

It would be interesting to know the history of this custom. I am thinking that this would not be merely a latinization since similar directives are given in the Ordo as well as the liturgicon. I wonder what the older liturgicons direct? In the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church we have priests who follow the above custom and those who will place the chalice on the altar, turn and give a blessing of dismissal to those who still at the front of the church with the words: "Save Your people�" Also, the custom of blessing with the chalice is the norm in most Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parishes and the rubric is in the 1988 edition of their pew book.

Regarding the prayer "Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ�", the rubric and text for this prayer are not found in the 1964 Ruthenian edition of the liturgicon, the 1995 Oxford edition (Ephraim, et al). It is in the Johnstown pew book, which credits both our liturgical books and those from Holy Cross (1985 edition).

The genesis of the differences is probably local custom. It is always important to note that at the time of the Nikonian reforms the Slavic Churches had in many cases preserved the more ancient usages better than the Greeks had. [The Greeks are really innovators.]

Admin

I have not at any time said that the customs (I prefer the term 'usages') of the Ruthenians are always lacking.

From the various conversations with learned priests of the BC church, I am left with the impression that there may be something lacking. I only offered my own impressions here.

Further, even if I were saying that which you have said above, isn't that allowed on this forum? When in another thread I defended the BC Ruthenians (ethnicity) in the face of what appeared to be Ukrainian agression I was informed (by an Administrator) that no topic is forbidden and this is not a Ruthenian or Byzantine Catholib board exclusively.

Bob

Discussions on any and all topics are welcomed and encouraged. Sometimes, however, it seems that you allow your experiences as a Byzantine Catholic to color anything you say about the Ruthenian Church with a cloak of negativity. I'm just asking that you try not to prejudge the customs of different Churches before providing evidence to support your positions. You may not even realize that you are doing it but your original post in this thread expressed displeasure with our liturgical books, stated that there were "significant divergences from the corresponding Orthodox practice" without any documentation that the practices you disliked were un-Orthodox and just not Russian.

Bob:

Regarding the genesis of the differences between the (transcarpathian) Ruthenians and Russians, I am curious:

Do you have the idea that these Ruthenians were not only culturally connected, but also ecclesiastically under the Kiev/Moscow metropolinate and later the Moscow Patriarchate?

Can anyone comment the pre-union history of Uzhgorod?

djs

As I recall the Instructions of January 6, 1996 (?) said (paraphrasing) that "when the Eastern Catholic practice is divergent from the corresponding contemporary Eastern Orthodox practice, the EC practice should be brought into line with the EO practice." If you need the exact paragraph, section, etc., I can provide that later.

A fair question would be "which Orthodox body corresponds to the 'Ruthenian'?"

Apparently the 1905 L'vov sluzhebnik of Sheptitsky contains none of the "Wash away..." or "Having beheld..." or any other. It also states that all the particles are placed in the chalice before communion of the faithful.

If Fr. David Petras notices this question perhaps he can comment on it.

My position is this: Ruthenians are Slavs and used Slavonic books, some wish to say that Mukachevo was immediatly subject to Constantinople. I have difficulty accepting this but even if this is so, would not the books have been the ones available in Slavonic?

I have also heard that there was some connection with Serbia. Kiev seems to be a reasonable connection, cultural and other, if not jurisdictional.

Moscow rose to prominence rather late so had Mukachevo remained majority Orthodox I have no doubt it would have been drawn into Moscow's influence, however the Union happened very early in relation to Moscow's rise.

I think that the written history of pre-Union Mukachevo is too sketchy to be certain. One can look to the neighbors for clues and arrive at certain deductions however these will always remain theories.

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Bob,

The Ruthenian recension encompasses the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that are Ruthenian (us and Johnstown), Ukrainian (including the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, of course), Slovak, Hungarian and Romanian.

Limiting it to Americas, this would include the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Churches, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church (Johnstown), the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Romanian Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Byzantine-Slovak Eparchy of Canada. [Did I miss anyone?]

It would probably not include the OCA since they have embraced the liturgical customs of the Russian Church.

Since Moscow rose in prominence very late (as far as liturgical development) I am not sure why anyone would consider them to be the guardians of Slavic Orthodoxy. One would think that it would be quite expected for Ruthenians to retain at least some pre-Nikonian practices, expecially after the unions and even with the latinizations. Or am I unclear on the point you are trying to make?

Admin

Dear Administrator,

My experiences as a BC were oftentimes, not always, rather inconsistent. You know as well as or better than I do that it is difficult to even establish what is the custom of the BC church in America since from parish-to-parish sometimes it is very different. Do not understand as negativity what may be in the end tragic dissapointment. Other than these inconsistencies and perhaps some rather condescending lack of scholarship or academic honesty when it comes to talking about the liturgical life of the BC church I try not to be negative.

I try to be unbiased, but as others I am due my right to an opinion.

Regarding my comment of practices being divergent, I have listed in this thread or another the paraphrased intruction from Rome. There is the problem of what corresponding Orthodox body the BCs are to look to.

Please try to overlook what may be poor skills in expression.

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Romanians use the Ruthenian Recension?

From a liturgical perspective, everyone in or near the Carpathian Mountains would be considered Ruthenian. The Carpathians extend along the Slovakia-Poland border and southward through Ukraine and Eastern Romania about 900 mi (1,450 km). The Transylvanian Alps are sometimes called the Southern Carpathians (there is at least one old black-and-white Dracula movie in which someone chases him away with a three-bar cross).

Also keep in mind that about 2/3 of Romania was annexed to Austria by the Hapsburgs, that most of Romania is south and west of today�s Ukraine, and that there were five Greek Catholic dioceses by WWII.

"... (there is at least one old black-and-white Dracula movie in which someone chases him away with a three-bar cross)."

You reminded me of the movie, "Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula" (2000), which is the best Dracula movie to date (I think) since it is the first attempt to portray Prince Vlad as he truly was, a political ruler who united the people of Wallachia and stopped paying tribute to the Turkish Sultan.

There is a scene of Prince Vlad's (Rudolph Martin) marriage in an Orthodox chapel to his first wife, Lidia, (Jane March) with a beautiful iconostasis and all the other liturgical trappings. The Inquisition scene at the beginning is with the Romanian Orthodox ecclesial court.

Yes, there are a few cameo clips of impalement scenes (spitting people on a stick); not good for those with week stomachs. Our Vlad was known as the Impaler. [The story goes that when the Turks were making an attempt to take control of his territory he had 1,000+ people impaled along the road leading to his city. This convinced the Turks not to mess with him any further since no decent murderer would do such things.]

Check out this link:
http://www.usanetwork.com/movies/darkprince/history.html

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]