www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Encyclical On The Greek-Ruthenian Rite by Pope Pius IX

Reading this encyclical, the Pope speaks well of the Greek Rite and gives it proper respect, but mentions about "innovation" and "trouble in the diocese of Chelm." Is anyone familiar with the situation during this time period, and what exactly the Pope was chastising and who?

7. "But what pains Us even more is the wretched state of affairs now afflicting the diocese of Chelm. In effect, its bishop, whom We installed but a few years ago and who is still connected with that diocese by spiritual bonds, is gone and a certain pseudo-administrator, whom We long ago judged unworthy of episcopal dignity, has not feared to usurp ecclesiastical jurisdiction and overturn everything within that church. And beyond that he has even tampered with the canonically sanctioned liturgy on his own initiative."

8. "To Our sorrow We have before Our eyes at this moment the circular letter published on 20 October 1873, in which the pseudo-administrator dares to make innovations in the exercise of divine worship and the sacred liturgy. No doubt his only purpose is to introduce the liturgy of the schismatics into the diocese of Chelm. In order to more easily deceive simple and uneducated people, he has unashamedly quoted certain constitutions of the Holy See and fraudulently interpreted them in his own way."

11. "Liturgical innovations of this nature proposed for the purpose of purifying the Oriental rites and restoring them to their pristine integrity are a pretext and therefore invalid. Indeed the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See. If variations have occurred in this liturgy in the course of time, they have been instituted after consultation with the Roman Pontiffs and for the express purpose of freeing such rites from any taint of heresy or schism and expressing Catholic teaching more correctly and clearly for the preservation of the faith and the good of souls. Accordingly, nothing other is intended by the deceptive pretext of purifying rites and restoring them to their original condition than the preparation of pitfalls for the faith of the Ruthenians of Chelm, whom evil men are striving to tear from the bosom of the Church and to hand over to heresy and schism."

It seems the Pope is condemning the idea of restoring the Eastern Rite to its original form? Does this have anything to do with Latinizations? He seems to touch on Latinization in that it is ok when its borrowed and not force, and there was an issue with it that was "smoothed" over. And on another note, i think The Second Vatican Council obviously called Eastern-rites to shed Latinizations. Was it the attitude of Pre-Vatican II popes that adopted Latin practices were ok?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9OMNEMS.HTM

The Pope in the document insists that he approve any changes to the Liturgy. The changes were at that time being impossed on the Church from outside and these changes did not have Papal approval.

The writing of subsequent Popes and the documents of Vatican II and the further writings of Popes make it quiet clear what they approve off and it a genuine restoration of the various traditions, previously looked down on and de-latinisation.

For further details on Chelm and it's problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Chelm_Eparchy

One finds a duplicity of attitude in Rome on the matter of liturgical authenticity in the Christian East - I once (in Australia, I think) gave a lecture, tracing the two parallel strands. Pope John Paul II definitively abandoned the idea in Orientale Lumen, but there are still lingering effects of it.

In the case of Omnem Sollicitudinem, the situation was complicated by strong pressure from the Tsar (who had installed the "pseudo-administrator"), whose motives for addressing the liturgical mess had precious little to do with religion.

The whole matter of Kholm/Chelm is quite involved, and no one emerges with absolutely simon-pure clean hands. Never a dull moment. Fifty years later a number of parishes returned to the Greek-Catholic Church but continued to use the Nikonian liturgy - and it was the Polish government causing trouble in the twenties and thirties!

Fr. Serge

Dear Father,

Do the clergy of the Russian and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches use the pre-Nikonian liturgy generally speaking?

Assuming you use the pre-Nikonian liturgy what would be the differences between, say, your Liturgy in Dublin and that of the Russian Patriarchal parish there? Apart from language, that is.

Khrystos Razhdayetsia!

The situation in Kholm noted above is a textbook case of Eastern Catholics who not only had come to adopt Latin practices, but who fought tooth and nail to keep them after Markell Popel, appointed by the then Russian authorities as administrator of the eparchy, ordered their removal so as to "cleanse" the Eastern rites of them.

For the Greek-Catholics of Kholm, the Latin practices gave them their "Catholic" and even cultural identity that separated them from the Russians. For them, loss of their Latin traditions would mean that they would be on the fast-track to full union with Russian Orthodoxy, thereby losing both their nationality and their faith.

This is indeed a complex case, especially given that the Greek-Catholic Church of Galicia at the time was rife with Russophile priests and bishops who would have agreed with Markell Popel's agenda! The EC Metropolitan Sylvester Sembratovych was actually dismissed for his Russophile views.

Russophilism was one way the Ruthenians (meaning "Ukrainians" here) sought to maintain their separateness from their Roman Catholic neighbours. However, the Russophile movement became one of open assimilation with Great Russian nationalism, the Russian language was used as truly "our" language, as the Russophile leaders affirmed, and they also taught there was no difference between Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorusyans.

The counter-movement of "Ukrainophilism" developed that soon defeated Russophilism through a strong organization of the "Prosvita" reading rooms and other initiatives that overwhelmed the Russophiles and saw the populace turn away from them. However, the influence of Russophilism continued in the liturgical translations of the UGCC and continues to this day.

Alex

So my take is that here, Pope Pius IX is using his "Apostolic Authority," in that he is protecting and overseeing the Catholicity of the Eastern-Rite? He mentions about the Bishop he appointed however an usuurper pseudo-administrator has taken over and tried to bring the rite of Chelm back to pristine form?

The Synod of Zamosc is also referred to and it's canons agreed upon by Latin and Ruthenian Bishops, from what information i've found about this synod, is that it brough some Ruthenian customs closer to those of the Latin. So my original question is that now we are trying to go back to our original customs, post Vatican II. it seems that as Eastern-Rite Catholics though we share alot of the same customs as Eastern Orthodox, we are sort of our own animal with borrowed Latin customs, or Latinization. I do not think we are called to be mirror image of the Eastern Orthodox, and copy cat, and Latinization is wrong but like in the whole history of the Catholic Church, some customs were borrowed organically between both east and west. It seems that the Pope is the ultimate judge on our rite i suppose

it becomes confusing when for example, kneeling during the concecration has been the custom now, although perhaps it was not original to our rite? How did kneeling become the norm, borrowed or forced? and what to do about it now? is it wrong to try to remove it, when many are used to it already, just because it isn't original? and what authority can make that call?

Father Hieromonk Ambrose asks:


A majority of the clergy of the Russian Greek-Catholics use the Nikonian liturgy. There are a few who use the Pre-Nikonian Liturgy also used by the Russian Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church.

The Liturgy of the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church was severely Nikonianized in the early nineteen forties, but some pre-Nikonian features still survive and there is a small but insistent movement to reverse the Nikonianization process.


That question has me at something of a disadvantage, because I have never even set foot in the Moscow Patriarchate's church in Dublin, so I don't know exactly what they do (even in the matter of languge).

But I can mention that we use the traditional congregational singing of Ukraine, which the faithful love, and there are any number of "liturgical customs" which are not, strictly speaking, liturgical but which the faithful would miss if they were omitted. This includes, for example, having festal annointings after the Divine Liturgy.

One can observe that even people who come to Church relatively rarely seriously want their homes blessed - which, of course, I am of course glad to do. But this could also be true of Russians. They will always come for a blessing for travelers before they go to visit the family in Ukraine. And so it goes.

That gets us into the Trebnyk. The Trebnyk of Saint Peter (Mohyla) is by far the richest in content, but it is inconceivable that any one parishioner or family would want absolutely every service in the book. For its best reprint, we are indebted to the generosity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop of Australia in 1988.

If you would like any further information, you are welcome to ask.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father,

I fail to understabnd the wish to introduce a great amount of pre-Nikonian usage into contemporary Ukrainian/Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church usage because this will estrange the Greek Catholic Church from its Orthodox counterparts which all, whether Greek or Russian or Arab, use what you term "Nikonian liturgy." The adoption of pre-Nikonian liturgy may serve to bring Greek Catholics to closer conformity to the Old Believers (Starovery) but it will distance you from the canonical Orthodox. In other words, does it not seem counterproductive to the role of the Greek Catholic Churches in our ecumenical dialogue?

Such a process of elimination of the "Nikonian" features which are common to all Byzantine Orthodox Churches reduces the possibility of the Greek Catholic Churches being perceived a a "bridge" Church between us.

We appear to have two distinct threads going within the single topic. While both present interesting queries, the original point of the thread is not served by tangential discussion. For now, the thread is closed.

Many years,

Neil