www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology standardizing the rite

It wasn't disagreement over recension but whether to keep Latinizations or return to more pristine Byzantine usage.

Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky wanted to de-Latinize, his suffragans did not. He cleverly talked his suffragans in Stanislaviv and Przemysl into turning it over to Rome which was joined by Mukachevo, Presov, Krizevci, Hadudorog, Winnipeg, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. Some thought Rome would confirm continued use of the Latinized forms. So while all got what they asked for not all got what they wanted, although Servant of God Metropolitan Andrew and Blessed Theodore did.

I don't understand Ruthenian bishops. They ask Rome for top quality liturgy books and then they no only ignore them but prohibit them from being used.

Look at the Roman Catholics in the United States. The parishes and religious orders that are liberal and reform minded are empty. The ones that stay close to traditional liturgy and belief are full and even teaming with vocations. So why did the Ruthenians decide to follow the path that leads to empty churches? If people want fuller, more traditional liturgies why not allow them? Makes no sense whatsoever. St. Sergius Cathedral has traditional liturgy and is doing pretty well. St. John Cathedral has the RDL and is pretty empty. Does Bishop John notice or care what attracts people and what drives them away?

Whew... How's the best way to put this?

This is why there is that hierarchical difference in all the different Byzantine Churches... Each has their own cultural traditions in which those that are governing themselves under the law of the Vatican, yet expressing it in their own ritual tradition.

Perfect example, the UGCC... You'd have it where Patriarch Sviatoslav, for example, would visit Rome to hear Pope Benedict XVI's words and message, then Patriarch Sviatoslav, in turn, would find ways to bring this order into the UGCC, have Metropolitans and Bishops throughout the world adhere to the ways of celebrating the Divine Liturgy, and how to work in those "standards" over time, but through all the synods and all the "red tape" that could be involved, to bring any retranslations or new traditions into the forefront... That could take at least another decade to fully implement. Just shows how slow things work with the larger Churches in the Eastern Rite.

I see that there are a number of disparate Byzantine jurisdictions/eparchies in America.

* Italo-Greek-Albanian
* Melkite
* Romanian
* Russian
* Ruthenian
* Ukrainian
* Slovak

These eparchies are tiny enough in America. Could there not be one Byzantine Rite jurisdiction? Or does particular ethnicity trump Catholic unity? Doesn't the "Byzantine" designation more entail our icons, church structures, liturgical traditions (chants, chorals, ad orientum, incense, etc)?

I think it is similar to the Orthodox issue with jurisdictions, especially in America. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and so forth: it suggests the perception of denominational division, even though they are united. But no doubt it has prevented some folks from joining, because "Well, I'm not of Russian ethnicity, therefore I can't/won't join this parish."

I love my particular culture and heritage. I hope all who do will defend it. But does it make sense to have overlapping various eccesial jurisdictions in this country?

Yes!

Recent popes have claimed that diversity in the Catholic Church strengthens it and gives it a wider perspective.
I don't see how a richer ritual, hymnography and customs weakens the Catholic Church. A homogenous Church is a danger to Orthodox/Catholic unity.

I didn't mean that I believe this I just mean that the practical reality is that for many Eastern Catholics, unfortunately, there is only one way and that is the ethnic way. Our little community is not ethnic at all but we are sponsored by a Ruthenian parish and use the BCC translation of the liturgy. Not a single Ukrainian in the city has attends even though we are the only Byzantine rite liturgy in the city. Some come on Easter to get their Easter baskets blessed.

This is not for you Paul but please no tacky comments about the green book.

Jim,

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I think that our Byzantine Church in America is making good progress towards being a good Eastern Church without being "exclusive " thanks to your parish and many others.

Without a widespread publicity campaign I'm not sure that we will overcome the "perceptiveness" of being exclusive. This is because we dont fit into "standard" according to American culture......and that is a good thing.

May God give you the blessing of a humble fast.

Are you saying, to paraphrase Greta Garbo in Ninochka, "There will be fewer but better Ruthenians next year".

Well, let's just hope we get a good Pontiff to replace the outgoing Pope Benedict XVI first before we determine if we can evangelize the Eastern Rite again. That's the first priority now, obviously.

Why? I've never cared much about the Corporate Management--whether the individual franchise is doing well is far more important.

True, but to have voice and leadership in the Vatican to denounce secularity in Western society, and to encourage the Evangelical Growth that we really need to sustain ourselves, that would, quite frankly, make our job a whole lot easier. That's the kind of Pope we need in these times, and I'm sure to have a Pontiff with the same vision, and unity that Pope John Paul II brought, we could potentially become a much stronger Church like we were even as early as 15 - 20 years ago, when the Ruthenian Church was still booming and held their own in terms of having that steady base of congregation and even gaining new members into the Rite, and even those coming into the clergy.

To quote Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ [natcath.org]

Can you please explain how mandating an abbreviated liturgy revised according to the worst examples of post-Vatican II Roman liturgy and mandating politically correct gender neutral language is "making good progress toward being a good Eastern Church"? The Ruthenian RDL is nothing more than a bad copy of the Roman Catholic Novos Ordo!

In fact, the tendency in the Ruthenian Church has been rather at odds with the path taken by other Churches that have become much more inclusive. The best example might be the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, which in a generation went from a relatively small Church for Middle Eastern immigrants, to a significantly larger Church, half of whose members (and two thirds of whose clergy) are converts with no ethnic connection to the Middle East whatsoever.

Despite that, and in contrast to the Ruthenian Church, it did not water down its liturgical life, but greatly intensified it--at the insistence of the converts. Not only was the Divine Liturgy celebrated more fully, but the Liturgy of the Hours came into common use across the jurisdiction. Oddly enough, the only people complaining are the ethnics, who dislike the rigor the converts brought to the Church.

I remember from my Ruthenian days (back, in fact, when the 1965 book was still in use) that questions about fuller celebration of the Divine Liturgy--singing all the antiphon verses, taking all the Little Litanies, restoring the Grant it petitions to the Angel of Peace litany--as well as reintroduction of Vespers and Orthros, were dismissed out of hand as "not Nas'".

The RDL seems like just an extension of that attitude, but one which got just a little too far out in front of the people for their liking. Suppose we were to provide a full English translation of the Ruthenian Recension, and we used all of it--do you think the people would hang around for it, or do you think that the "latinization of the mind" which has been playing on the Ruthenian consciousness for the past century or so would make such a return to Tradition intolerable?