|
0 members (),
552
guests, and
116
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,613
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
The Recension, common custom, the RDL implementation, the previous adjustments to "creeping-Paschalism": How do they stack up? This is a spin-off of another thread, link . I've taken the four pertaining posts from there to be the seed for this examination and discussion that hopefully will address and inform regarding the initial question above. What I believe Job is referring to is the reduction of number of times "Christ is risen" is sung at the Divine Liturgy after Bright Week, to match the provisions in the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension. When the custom that has been called creeping-Paschalism was changed, I was out of the loop and never saw the given reference to the Recension or the actual new directive. Where exactly is it in the Ruthenian Recension texts. Thanks. Father Deacon,
The rubrics for singing "Christ is risen" at the end of the Divine Liturgy on the Sunday of Pascha, and during Bright Week, can be found in the Ruthenian Apostol, as the alternate dismissal section at the end of the order of the Divine Liturgy - in the large Apostol, page 738.
The rubrics for the the start of the Divine Liturgy from the Sunday of Saint Thomas to the leaveetaking of Pascha can be found in the Apostol in the propers for Thomas Sunday, page 534.
The rubrics for the end of the Divine Liturgy, for the same period, are in the Apostol on page 535.
As far as I can determine, they match the corresponding order in the new People's Book, EXCEPT that the Slavonic edition has the priest singing all three repetitions of the Christ is risen at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, with the people singing only the conclusion of the third repetition; while in the new English books, the priest sings once and the people twice.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
(I THINK the page numbers are right, I had to jot them down over lunch.) Yours in Christ,
Jeff
(I THINK the page numbers are right, I had to jot them down over lunch.) Jeff, thanks; I'll look them up, and probably comment further in the RDL forum. How can the bishops appeal to the authority of the Ruthenian official books for little rubrics when they openly reject these same books regarding the Holy Liturgy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
Jeff gets an A+ for the page references to the Recension Apostol. For convenience, these can be viewed at these links: page 534 [ patronagechurch.com] Thomas Sunday start page 535 [ patronagechurch.com] Thomas Sunday end page 738 [ patronagechurch.com] Dismissal Also, here are the pages for Pascha (the page navigation on the site is not working, and there isn't a detailed index, so I'm listing all the individual pages): Pascha, page 529 [ patronagechurch.com] Pascha, page 530 [ patronagechurch.com] Pascha, page 531 [ patronagechurch.com] Pascha, page 532 [ patronagechurch.com] In English: A pdf link (Pages 1-104; B&W facsimile) to the RDL Chrysostom liturgicon text is available here [ patronagechurch.com] . Other directives are in the new pew book given as a pdf file, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great (2006, 467 pages; PDF (21 mb)), here [ metropolitancantorinstitute.org] .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
This post is also from the original thread since it pertains to this threads topic and my original question. I've taken the liberty of reproducing Jeff's post in this specific spin-off topic in the RDL, since it is the kind of post/discussion that I was hoping to see here. Lady Byzantine,
To the best of my knowledge, our bishops haven't appealed to the authority of these boks. Neither have any of them referred to "creeping Paschalism." As far as I can tell, they have made changes to existing customers, or enshrined them in particular liturgical law, as they thought best.
All the appeals that I have heard to the Ruthenian recension books, relative to the liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church, have been on this board. And yet, when BCC liturgical publications have moved TOWARD the Ruthenian recension books, there have been complaints here - the issues of "Christ is risen", and the psalmody at the Presanctified Liturgy, being examples.
It may very well be that many of these "customary" changes come from a time when both the BCC and ACROD celebrated the Divine Liturgy to the almost complete exclusion of the other servics, and even then only on Sundays. So for example, I have heard the explanations given that "Christ is risen" is sung extra times during the Paschal season because we AREN'T in church every day of Bright Week; and that the custom of mirovanije at the end of the Divine Liturgy is because we don't HAVE Litija with distribution of blessed bread, and anonting with oil at Matins.
I have little doubt that as the other services come back into use, there will be conflicts over which customs to keep. We have already seen that with the singing of Passion hymns and the Presanctified Liturgy.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
Firstly I will state again that my approach to most liturgical issues is a pastoral one. Publish liturgical books that are correct to the normative forms but don’t use liturgical books to hurt people by draconian demands to comply (the RDL has been a pastoral disaster on that front). The best way forward is to respect the faithful (and what they have memorized) and to effect positive change through example, education, and encouragement. With regard to Liturgy I continue to recommend rescinding the RDL completely, and issuing in its place a corrected version of the 1964 text with the old music.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way on this issue of the extending of Bright Week rubrics for the 40 days of Pascha. It does seem that this custom might indeed qualify as an organic development among Ruthenians and at least some Ukrainians (the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish I went to for Pascha had a bit in the bulletin that the singing of the paschal troparion for the 40 days in the usual places was mandatory for them).
A question to be explored is does the extension of Bright Week rubrics to the 40 days of Pascha qualify as organic development? Why or why not? And it needs to be considered in light of some of the invented rubrics given in the RDL which are claimed as legitimate organic development (though they did not have even the basis of wide-spread acceptance to support them).
It is my opinion that the bishops did not give great thought to this (just like they did not give great thought to recommendation of the Vespers / Basil DL / Pascha Matins combo that is an option for Holy Saturday and which is is really bad liturgical theology). I’ve personally seen Metropolitan Basil singing the paschal troparion in place of “May our lips be filled” in the middle of Pascha with great gusto together with the congregation (prior to the Reform). He did not appear to be bothered by it, but I did not discuss it with him. It seems to me that the mandate here came from the liturgical commission and is more part of a personal agenda of reform than it is a restoration to official forms. Official forms were appealed to when they supported something the commission wanted. They were ignored when they did not support the reform the commission wanted.
So I recommend evaluating whether what is called “paschal creep” is really just that or is it legitimate organic development. I’d say such a discussion should also include a discussion of the Paschal Antiphons, which replaced the ‘daily antiphons’ on all Sundays of the year only during the nineteenth century (which roughly parallels the development of the extension of Bright Week rubrics to the 40 days).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
To the best of my knowledge, our bishops haven't appealed to the authority of these boks. Neither have any of them referred to "creeping Paschalism." As far as I can tell, they have made changes to existing customers, or enshrined them in particular liturgical law, as they thought best. I did not attribute the term "creeping Paschalism" to anyone let alone the bishops but was recalling it from memory. I have traced the term down as far as this post, link, way back on 4/20/04. I also found a version of the original directives in this post, link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
To the best of my knowledge, our bishops haven't appealed to the authority of these boks... As far as I can tell, they have made changes to existing customers, or enshrined them in particular liturgical law, as they thought best. So the revisions are not based on the authority of the Recension books but the best opinion of the bishops? But here is some more info from the 2004 thread: Why is it that you think that the Council of Hierarchs (in this particular situation which we are discussing) did not have Fr. Petras do serious research into this subject before making the recommendation that was adopted by them?
Fr. Petras' research, in fact, turned up that the APOSTOL (Ruthenian Rescension, basis of our liturgical practice--and for the Galicians too, for that matter--) lists the practices EXACTLY AS THE COUNCIL OF HIERARCHS MANDATED THEM. So, in fact, the usages of extending Bright Week practices into the rest of the Paschal season, no matter how wide-spread, are in fact not practices sanctioned by our official Slavonic books. Are the previously listed practices ( link), mandated sometime prior to that post, exactly as in the Recension? Does the RDL modify the listed practice? I ask this after looking at the Apostol directives, but it is easy to miss a fine point; nevertheless, I feel the questions are warranted. Consider this also: Actually, one can still appeal to the Roman books. In the translation of the Liturgy we have used as the standard the model editions of the Ruthenian Recension as promulgated by Rome from 1941-1973. Variances from these books were approved by the same authority which issued them....
Therefore, for the Paschal practices, the Roman books were followed. May I now express my personal opinion??? Personally, I don't see any problem with singing the Paschal Troparion instead of , "Blessed is he who comes... " and "May our mouth be filled ...," but this is not general Byzantine practice - Catholic or Orthodox, and that is our norm. I see a value in restricting some practices to only Bright Week, to emphasize the unique joy of the Resurrection in contrast to the rest of the year. In the manuscript I edited for my doctorate, "Christ is risen .. " was, in fact, sung only during Bright Week (but I don't recommend that!) Yet for the RDL the Greek version pulled ahead of the Recension it seems. And "for Paschal practices, the Roman books were followed"; but were they solely? All the appeals that I have heard to the Ruthenian recension books, relative to the liturgy of the Byzantine Catholic Church, have been on this board. And yet, when BCC liturgical publications have moved TOWARD the Ruthenian recension books, there have been complaints here - the issues of "Christ is risen", ... That is a fair criticism to raise. It has also been termed the “Gutenberg Assumption” or a "Gutenberg Fundamentalist" approach to use Fr. David's phrases. I do not speak for others, but one must examine what has been criticized as departures from the Recension and the reasons given, but also realize that some changes have not been so critiqued, and are accepted. Besides, one may justly want to know the rationale for a change and examine that rationale, when it actually is given, and appraise it by rigorous scholarly standards when it is advanced as such. In the latter case especially, I have found a lot to be desired. Those who would make changes for example and cite authority in making them should also exhibit the responsibility and ability to explain them. I say the following as a matter of being confused by intent; what is the intent, the vision, the underlying consistency or objective in what is being done and HOW it is being done? In this case of the Paschal troparion, Fr. David himself says he sees no harm in the old practice. Why mandate otherwise, although one can point out the Recension practice. But what is the point if the Recension only has a second class status anyway? Who among those who criticize the RDL would object to the former customary Paschal practice and insist on strict adherence to the Apostol? Who has consistently and with consensus criticized the RDL for not having the filioque still in brackets, or the teplota service now with brackets removed, or the addition to the pre-communion prayer still said, or the practice of clergy and people saying that prayer together and in effect combining the communion rites, or the inclusion of the holy Apostles in the dismissal blessing? On the other side, going to intent, why would rubrics that were advanced and practiced in the seminary 40 years ago, that are found in the Recension, some also found in Russian practice, now need to be changed to match the 1950 Greek liturgicon? What provokes and necessitates this change? And one could go on with items that have been noted and questioned and those questions often unanswered.
|
|
|
|
|
