www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Recensions

I'd like to ask the ff:

1) What are the major differences between the Ruthenian Recension and the "Recensio Vulgata" or Nikonian Recension?

2) Is the following chart correct?

RUTHENIAN RECENSION:

1) Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
2) Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
3) Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of USA and Canada (under Constantinople)
4) Carpatho-Russian Diocese
5) Ruthenian Catholics

NIKONIAN RECENSION

1) Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP
2) Ukrainian Orthodox Church - KP
3) Carpatho-Russian Orthodox under MP

Do you mean the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox under the EP?

Father Bless...

I see asianpilgrim is not currently on line...but I would believe the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox under the EP is included in the first group simply listed as the the Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese..

The Blessing of the Lord.

Ah, yes, Sorry. I was confused by the terminology. I suppose then that what AP calls "Carpatho-Russian Orthodox under MP" is the Autocephalous Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands? It is not under the Moscow Patriarchate, however.

Fr David Straut

Dear All:

Sorry for my clumsiness.

Yes, "Carpatho-Russian Diocese" refers to the diocese under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

As for the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox under MP, I am referring to the Carpatho-Rusyn/Russian Orthodox under the Moscow Patriarchate, located in the extreme western part of Ukraine.

Well, now that Fr. David has mentioned it, what recension does the Autocephalous Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands use?

First of all there may be an oversimplification in implying there is such a thing as one "Ruthenian Rescension". It is actually a complex development including Old Kyivan (Mohylian and other pre-Nikonian influences), various local Carpathian usages, as well as Balkan and other sources of influence.

There are some small liturgcal variations; for example the Nikonian rescension calls for the Troparia of the Third Hour as a dialogue between the priest and deacon before the Epiclesis and the taking of "Having Seen the Resurrection of Christ" after Communion by the deacon, but neither of these are present in the standard usages of the "Ruthenian Rescension". There is also some variations in the Antiphons not only between the rescensions but within those using the "Ruthenian Rescension".

Regarding any Carpatho-Rusyns under the MP, I believe only those of Transcarpathia inside Ukrainian borders are under the jurisdiction of the UOC-MP.

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Diak is correct, all of present day Ukraine is claimed as canonical property of the Muscovite Patriarch, even territories never before under Russian rule until the time of the episcopate of Metropolitan Andry Sheptytsky. Is Poland under which Patriarch, as before Akcija Wisla it too was under Soviet Russian rule?

AP,

As Deacon Randy points out (and on which Father Serge may well elaborate further), there are liturgical distinctions and nuances on the parish level that at times belie any generalization. However, these are the jurisdictional divisions ordinarily cited among the EC Churches as demarcating those which serve according to either of the two rescensions:

Great Russian Rescension - Nikonian Usage

**Belarusan Greek-Catholic Church

**Bulgarian Greek-Catholic Church

**Russian Greek-Catholic Church, EXCEPT
***a single parish of the Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow, which serves according to the Pre-Nikonian Usage

Little Russian (Ruthenian) Rescension

**Croatian Greek-Catholic Church

**Hungarian Greek-Catholic Church

**Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians
(All other jurisdictions of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church serve according to the Romanian Rescension)

**Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church, EXCEPT
***Our Lady of Wisdom Parish, Las Vegas, NV of the Eparchy of Van Nuys of the Ruthenians, which serves according to the Byzantine Graeco-Italian Rescension

**Slovak Greek-Catholic Church

**Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church

Many years,

Neil

Please keep in mind: "recension" is nothing more than a chi-chi word for "edition".

Fr. Serge

ROTFL - I knew that was coming ... so, as is the case whenever my dear friend offers that, absolutely correct, observation (in any of several forms that he has over the past several years), let me humbly reply with my explanation/justification for its use (for the benefit of those who haven't previously been exposed to this exchange)


Many years,

Neil

Is there any good books on the subject that outline the general differences between the ruthenian rescension and the nikonian rescension?

Are*

Excuse my poor grammar : (

Please . . . the only people who claim to have a liturgical "recension" are the "Ruthenians". If you want to see the difference between the Nikonian books and the present Ruthenian books, you have only to obtain copies of each and compare them.

Fr. Serge

A Niall, a chara dhil,

If you want a better word, try "Use", which has been around for centuries. E. g. "the Use of Sarum", "monastic Use" and so on.

Let's leave the "recensions" to the pretentious reviewers!

An tAth. Brian

Father Serge:

I used the term "RECENSION" because that is how the Libreria Editrice Vaticana refers to these books.

If you'll look up the annual Catalogo Generale of the Libreria, under the section "Liturgia per le chiese Orientali", the liturgical books "in lingua slava ecclesiastica" are divided into two sections:

1. Recensio vulgata (pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis)
2. Recensio Ruthena (pro Ucrainis et Ruthenis)

I don't think the use of the term "Recensio" has anything to do with being pretentious, and everything to do with the fact that the term IS widely used for these liturgical books. I asked this same question in some Orthodox liturgical lists and no one said that it was a pretentious term to use.

Respectfully:

AP