www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Icon Screens and Byzantine Catholic Denial

Today's mail brought a most incredible, thought-provoking news story, courtesy of the latest issue of the eparchial newspaper...

Parish to Install Iconostas

Saint [...] Byzantine Catholic Church of [...] has begun an extensive renovation of the Church interior in order to bring it up to the standards required by the recently promulgated "Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA." In those norms, it is stated (Canon 707 P1,a5): "The altar where the Liturgy is to be celebrated should have its own Icon Screen."

...[The artist's] design for the Icon Screen in the [...] Church uniquely utilizes the four mosaic icons that have hung on the side walls of the church for many years and the communion railing [sic]. ...

Are we supposed to believe that a 1999 document was the first presentation of the concept that a Ruthenian church should have an icon screen??

Are you kidding me with this?!!?

In part I, article 6 of Ordo Celebrationis (Rome, 1944) it states, "A Holy Table which lacks an iconostasis is not considered truly suitable for divine services."

I'm thrilled that this parish is finally trying to become a Byzantine church in practice, but whom does it help to pretend that we're right on top of things when in actuality we are almost 60 years behind?

As the Southern ladies might say:

"Daaaaaarliiin' We're Byzantines. We don't never rush. Never you mind 'bout them things. We'll get it done -- eeeeeventual."

Besides the Postal Service between Pittsburgh and the rest of the country is REEEEAAL slow. Ya hear?

Blessings!

I have read the 1944 "Ordo Celebrations." Unfortunately, it was ignored by the Greek [Ruthenian] Catholic Church's hierarchy.

>>>I have read the 1944 "Ordo Celebrations." Unfortunately, it was ignored by the Greek [Ruthenian] Catholic Church's hierarchy.<<<

So, apparently, was the 1996 "Instruction for the Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches promulgated by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Exactly. All we really needed to do to make our liturgy identical to most of the Orthodox was to restore the creed to the original form by removing the filioque, adding back the litanies between the antiphons and adding the Third Antiphon. Instead the REVISIONIST liturgical commission has gutted the liturgy in full imitation of the Roman Catholics. More latinizations!!

"Exactly. All we really needed to do to make our liturgy identical to most of the Orthodox was to restore the creed to the original form by removing the filioque, adding back the litanies between the antiphons and adding the Third Antiphon. Instead the REVISIONIST liturgical commission has gutted the liturgy in full imitation of the Roman Catholics. More latinizations!!"

Hmmm .... don't think you're going to get much agreement from Stuart on that one.

ISTM that we discussed this a few months ago on a liturgical reform thread. There are differences of opinion regarding (1) whether a liturgical reform (beyond trimming of Latinizations, real or perceived) is needed in the Byzantine Rite (catholic or orthodox), (2) the degree to which Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox liturgical practices should be identical and, particularly on point, (3) the advisability of particular liturgical reforms (including the ones you mention).

IMO, regardless of what one thinks in terms of the underlying substance of the changes that are being proposed/made, it's not accurate to call this process a "latinization". Orthodoxy also has its own liturgical reformers.

Brendan