www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian Stations of the Cross

Dear Friends,

This topic is of great interest and the posts are particularly interesting. Does anyone have any more information about the Studite Fathers that could be either posted or a URL given for reference? In particular I would be interested in their horarium. Also there is apparently a set of books called the Studite Spiritual Library, or something like that. I have a copy of a little book about Leonid Feodorov from that collection and would like to know about other titles. I have tried to call the Studite Fathers in Woodstock, ON, but no one answers the phone.

Has anyone translated the Pasii into English? If so, where might a copy be obtained?

Many thanks and all the best,
Woody

Alexis Toth was a former Basilian? What? Are you sure, Alex?

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

According to the Life of St Alexis Toth that I have from the OCA, yes, he was a former Basilian priest.

The first Lemko Orthodox Martyr, St Maxim Sandovich, was also in a Basilian seminary, although I believe he left before receiving tonsure.

St Arsenius Matsievich of Rostov, glorified a saint in August of AD2000, was also an Eastern Catholic before returning to Orthodoxy and I believe he was in a Basilian monastery as well.

Believe it or not . . .

Alex

Dear Jose,

You are right, of course.

But the great promoter of the Stations as we know them today was St Leonard of Port-Maurice who started his crusade in this respect at the end of the seventeenth century.

St Francis, who was famous for his stigmata, promoted a tremendous veneration for the Passion of Christ and the Way of the Cross, beginning in his life-time, although we don't know what this consisted of. There was more than one version and the Orthodox St Tikhon Zadonsky had his own series of "Stations" in his cell, as his Life bears out.

The Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem which I walked, the Via Dolorosa is certainly older than the 19th century.

On the other hand, even if the Stations of the Cross were a relatively recent event (although certainly before the 19th century), this did not prevent Orthodox saints of the Kyivan Baroque period, such as St Dmitry of Rostov and others from adopting versions of the Way of the Cross for their own private devotions, devotions that, under St Peter Mohyla, led to the development of the Passiyi.

The Passiyi are a rare example of a "para-liturgical" service in the Orthodox church that parallel, in many ways, the Stations of the Cross.

They are divided into five parts and were served following the Liturgy on five Sundays of Great Lent and still are served in Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. It is a "peculiarity" of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

Today, the Stations of the Cross have similarly become a "para-liturgical" service in Ukrainian Orthodoxy and elsewhere, although it is certainly not popular in Russian Orthodoxy.

There were many other such devotions peculiar to the Ukrainian Orthodox tradition that the Russian Church stamped out, as is described by Basil Lypkivsky in his ethnological works.

One such devotion is that to the "Pieta" or the Mother of God holding Her Son in Her lap following the Crucifixion.

In the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, this was called the devotion to the "Tenth Friday" (following Easter).

The Russian Church forbade this devotion, but in many areas of Eastern Ukraine, this feast was observed, and using Ukrainian Catholic texts, often kept hidden ("pod spudom").

Ukrainian Orthodoxy also developed such devotions as the veneration for "The Wounded Side of Christ" that closely paralleled the Sacred Heart devotion.

St Dmitry of Rostov practiced all these devotions, including that of the Rosary (also practiced by St Seraphim of Sarov and many Russians).

Again, nomatter how old the Stations of the Cross is, as we know it, that should not and will not prevent Eastern CAtholics AND Orthodox from practicing it.

On a personal note, during the Great Fast, I use the Orthodox version of the Stations for the 15 decades of the Rule of the Mother of God.

Alex

Dear Folks,

The West developed the Stations of the Cross and the East developed the Litija Service, both being processional liturgies derived partly from the liturgical practices of Jerusalem.

Why can't the East just do Vespers with Litija since it has a common history with the Stations? What exactly is it in the Ukrainian mindset that they have to be something they are not? Isn't our traditions good enough? This shows how we define ourselves not by who we are but by what we do. We do Latin services, therefore, we are Catholic.

My family spent time in the Ukrainian Cath. Church and today most descendents are going to Roman Catholic Churches and will NEVER step foot in a Byzantine Catholic Church. Most are clueless about anything Eastern Christian. But they are all happy about keeping their "Catholic" faith elsewhere. The Ukranian Cath. parishes I know are senior citizen parishes. But they have their Stations! This is a dying Church. I've never met a Church that has hated itself so much!


Cantor Joe

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Woody,

The Studites basically use the translation of the Horologion or Horarium that was approved by Patriarch Josef Slipyj.

They also have a beautiful Ukrainian Psalter with the complete prayers at the end of each Kathisma.

All of this is, alas, in Ukrainian.

The Passiyi have not been translated into English as yet, I don't believe.

Fr. Serge Keleher had his own English translation that he ALWAYS served at his former Toronto parish of St Seraphim of Sarov.

You might want to e-mail him, I believe Anthony Dragani, that indefatigable defender of our Church, has his e-mail.

Again, the Passiyi are a peculiarity of the Kyivan Church dating from St Peter Mohyla the Metropolitan.

Peter Mohyla was of Royal blood and was in line to become Prince of Moldavia, as he was of Roumanian background.

He had strong Royal blood ties to many Roman Catholic families in Europe, including Poland.

Any "Latinizations" that he evinced came from his own wide European education, however.

He became Archimandrite of the Kyivan Caves Lavra and Metropolitan (with Patriarchal powers) of Kyiv-Halych and all Rus'.

He donated what would today be millions of dollars of his own money and inheritance to the restoration of Churches etc. especially St Sophia of Kyiv, the "Mother of all Churches of Rus'" as he himself wrote.

I recommend veneration of St Peter Mohyla to all Catholics and Orthodox!

Alex

Fr. Toth was a widowed priest (see his conversation with the dearly departed Abp. Ireland) and was a curial official of the Presov Eparchy. (Wouldn't a Basilian have to be a monastic -- not eparchial -- priest?)

The OCA was not exactly scrupulous about researching his life. I informed them exactly in what village he was born, yet the official biography placed his birth merely "near Eperjes". I guess if Baltimore is "near Philadelphia" that's about right.

RichC: you're right on (in my opinion)!

It was precisely because he was a widower that the whole conflict arose. I wouldn't doubt it if any celebate priest was considered a Basilian at that time, just as any monk was considered a Basilian.

Dear RichC,

Yes, he did leave the Basilians to get married, as did St Maxim Sandovich.

I don't know if he was actually tonsured a Basilian, but he certainly spent time in a Basilian monastery and seminary and early developed an aversion for their "Jesuit" theology, as did Sandovich and Matsievich.

This is interesting, since other Orthodox saints of the Kyivan Baroque period were immersed in western theology and devotions such as Dmitri of Rostov and Peter Mohyla.

Alex

Dear Daniil,

Actually, St Alexis Toth became violently anti-Roman because of his earlier training by the Basilians.

This is shown in his published diaries where he constantly crossed swords with Basilian and Redemptorist missionaries sent to quell the surging tide of Eastern Catholic conversion to Orthodoxy.

He referred to such missionaries as, forgive me, "jerks."

He was personally convinced of the "error" of the Roman way.

And, at the same time, Orthodox bishops regarded him with great suspicion.

Alex

Dear Cantor Joe,

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is not dying, my friend.

What you have described occurred as a result of the unique conditions in your Grand Republic of the Melting Pot, not as a result of devotions.

In Western Ukraine itself, the Ukrainian Catholic church is flowering as is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and BOTH have the Stations of the Cross, the 40 Hours devotion, the Rosary etc.

I've met priests from BOTH Churches who would take you on, best two out of three falls, over these devotions.

Entire parishes join in continual Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. Each one has their particular hour, even small children.

The idea that somehow there is a predetermined "true Eastern" way of doing things versus the "Western" is simply unhistorical and unsociological.

Rather than dismissing these devotions, we could perhaps reflect on some reasons WHY they are so popular with both Catholics and Orthodox.

Certainly, western devotions, in both the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches, have had the cultural effect of keeping Russification at bay. In our community, if someone is very "Orthodox" he is immediately considered a Russophile. Don't shoot the messenger . . .

Also, the notion of "Catholic" versus "Orthodox" is a theoretical one. There is the Ukrainian Community and Churches, the Russian etc. each of which developed and borrowed from other traditions under the historical and social circumstances in which they lived and developed.

This idea of "Our traditions" that, as our pastor said, "Extreme Easterners" keep throwing up at us is quite meaningless.

Most Ukrainians wouldn't recognize those traditions as being remotely "ours" and yet we are chastised for adhering to them.

That ethnic churches in the U.S. are dying out is a result of your Republic's policy with respect to the domination of mainstream English culture. This policy is also having an impact on the Byzantine Catholic Church that is regarded by the ecclesial mainstream as "ethnic" as well.

When you become a priest and go into a parish that has the Stations of the Cross, then you can speak with some authority over "our traditions" when the people shake their fist at you and say, "Don't you dare, Joe, stay away from that wall now, put that Station back or else!"

And it is no use pointing to Vatican documents about the Eastern rites etc.

Those who wrote them had and continue to have no idea about what life in Eastern Europe is like, historically and in contemporary times.

The recent Vatican action in Russia just shows that this is the case.

Your view here is rather naive and theoretical. But when you get ordained and work in an actual parish, you'll have to learn some things they don't teach in the seminary or that aren't written down in the Scriptures.

Sorry to have to say this, but so much for your apology to RichC over similar matters.

Alex

What is truly fascinating from a sociological point of view is the fact that Joe's home parish church and my Mom's home parish church are in essentially the same town (now, they are officially in the same town) and sit on opposite hills facing each other.



[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

Alex,

My friend, I came from one of the most Latinized Byzantine Catholic parishes in the U.S. I can never understand why one has to go looking for devotions from other traditions when one has many traditions in one's own church. It is not so much what is done 'in place of' or as a 'substitute,' but the big WHY for the almost total eclipse of one's own devotions. You see, Alex, the majority of the children who attended our heavily Latinized parish are now attending Latin parishes even though a Byzantine Catholic parish is just down the street. Such is the legacy of teaching one's parishioners how to be a real Catholic. Adopt everything else and ignore your own. It is not a matter of doing and being ultra-Orthodox or an "extreme Easterner." And quite frankly, why are those who wish to celebrate their own liturgies for a change are labelled "extreme Easterners" and those who do not are not labelled at all? There is a certain bias here that I see that is highly defensive. One either celebrates one's church liturgies and devotions or one does not. Many have chosen not to. And many can come up with as many excuses as there are grains of sand on the beach. When does the excuses end and the educating and leading begin? I am not naive or theoretical, Alex. I've been instrumental in restoring our liturgies as a cantor for many years. What I run into is ignorance and deception from poor liturgists, but never had witnessed a raised fist from parishioners. What they want most of the time is an explanation, which is rarely given because of the poor methodologies used in implementing changes in how we act as church. Even cantors get instructions with absolutely no explanation, no date stamp, and no name from where they come from. What is needed is COMMUNICATION and PROPER EDUCATION; not through haughtiness (I'm more Orthodox than you!), not through fiat (Why don't you guys know how to do this, you stupid idiots?), and not through ignoring it (We don't do it because the people don't want it anyways; so let's do Stations and Adoration).

BTW, why do you need to "adore" the Eucharist? Isn't consuming it good enough? Isn't this the purpose of liturgy and communion: to "taste and see how good the Lord is" and not to adore it?

Joe

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

My dear condescending, upset friend, Joe

Number one, referring to my name more than once in a post isn't necessary, and sounds "litany-like" - a Latinism in itself . (Calm down, will you!).

You have a different perspective on things that I respect, but respectfully disagree with. It's not the end of the world. If it makes you feel better, I'll say I agree with you

But in the event that I fight the charitable urge in me to do so, I'll just reiterate that membership in our Churches has as much to do with culture as with religion. In your mainstream, American culture, ethnic groups get run over, that's a fact.

And how do you think WASPish Americans view Byzantine onion-domed Churches? It makes them think of garlic! If our Churches are condemned in the US it is because they themselves express another cultural reality that is foreign to North American cosmopolitanism.

Practicing "our traditions" (whatever they are, we should really have a thread outlining them) is fine.

But you, as a future deacon and priest, should know that pastoral practicality will force you to do things that your Byzantine liturgical and scriptural studies have taught you not to.

I too started out as a "Bright-eyed Byzantine."

I discarded the rosary, stations etc. Today, I'm back with them, after years of experience attending all sorts of parishes and reading all sorts of books.

From a pastoral perspective as well, if devotion to the Blessed Sacrament (practiced by ALL the Byz CAtholic martyrs beatified by the Pope in Ukraine) brings people to church, then Orthodox and Catholic priests aren't going to downplay it.

As for the revered Litias etc., show me somewhere else where people will attend Church throughout a 24 hour period as they do in many parishes in western Ukraine.

The Orthodox and Catholic Priests who have these devotions are very happy and say that the people's faith has become very real and dynamic as a result.

If that's wrong, from an idealized and reified Byzantine or other perspective, then I don't want to be right.

Have a Great Fast!

Alex

Alex,

I started out as a "bright-eyed Latin" then later got educated by my Latin instructors at the seminary. Their main question: "Why do you guys have to keep doing stuff of ours all the time and why can't you all be yourselves for a change?"

This angered me because I kept arguing with them that my Tridentine-style parish WAS Byzantine through and through and that their labelling me as a Latinized Easterner was condescending. This was something that I had to live with for several years ... until I started to ask questions.

I should note that I have nothing against the practices I mentioned above. But the questions that kept bugging me were: Why do we ignore our own faith traditions? Why do we abhor them so much that we have to substitute them for someone elses? To prove we are Catholic? To prove we are not Orthodox? To prove something else? Is our goal in life to "prove" something? This seems to be more of a cultural identity thing than something dealing with a covenant relationship with God.

How can someone who was raised in the most Latinized parish in the U.S., educated in a Latin seminary, and have half of his family faithful devotees of the Latin Church get enlightened? My answer: EDUCATION!

Yes. Ethnicity and culture are important, but in many parishes and regions most marriages are not between Eastern Catholics, hence the ethnic/cultural thing gets demoted since a marriage may be more than a Ukrainian event. So, what is left when I and my brother marry Italians? Why do I go to church? I go to worship God.

Isaiah is a good Lenten reflection when it comes to the topic of satisfying God and not our personal 'needs' all the time. It is no wonder why our forefathers killed the prophets; they didn't want to hear it.

If our Byzantine liturgical and biblical studies are not quite with it in the cultural sense then why should we even bother studying them? For the sake of formality? To satisfy canonical requirements? To have something to do while going through some deacon or seminary program? What exactly does our faith in God center around and how do we come to know him? If studying and reflecting over the Scriptures is only a lip-service activity then I don't want to have anything to do with it. I'll go back to finance and mathematics.

I have received a lot of ridicule for wanting to study our Scriptures. Why would anyone in OUR church would want to do THAT? Maybe I should attend Stations of the Cross instead?


Joe

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]