www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Liturgical changes in the Paschal season

Heavens, this is getting technical. But nothing wrong with that.
Usually one would agree that the legislator can legislate with regard to the legislator's own laws, but there are a few caveats in applying that principle. If Father David is suggesting, as he seems to be, that the legislator (in this instance, the Holy See) which promulgated the Ruthenian Recensions service-books and Ordo Celebrationis has issued new legislation modifying the legislation of approximately sixty years ago, then everyone who is interested is entitled to request text, chapter and verse of this new legislation, particularly if it is a question of modifying the Divine Liturgy. Moreover, the legislator has an obligation to make the new legislation known in approximately the same manner as the original legislation was made known.
There has certainly been further scholarship since the nineteen-forties (there has also been Vatican II and other developments which have bearing on the topic). But if the legislation, qua legislation, is modified, one would expect the legislator to include some explanation besides a mere legalistic insistence on the right of the legislator to act.
Then there is the matter of the origin of the legislation itself. As can easily be shown, the Holy See compiled and promulgate that series of books in response to a direct request from all the "Ruthenian" hierarchs (including the Ukrainians but not including the Hungarian bishop). Has there been such a quasi-unanimous request from the successors of those hierarchs?
Further, there is the matter of the basis of the original legislation - which was stated to be a restoration of the material as found at approximately the time of the Union of Brest and Union of Uzhorod, before serious latinization set in. This basis was determined by a Plenary of the Cardinals of the Oriental Congregation, approved by Pope Pius XI, so it cannot be modified by a simple decision of one Cardinal, let alone one secretary or one consultor.
More recently, one must also take into account the Instruction on implementing the liturgical prescriptions of the Code of Canons.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Father David,

Thank you for your post. I am sure that we can at least agree that liturgical discussions are best done over a bottle of Chianti and a plate of pasta. But, sadly, a Coke, a keyboard and some freshly picked creeping paschalism from the backyard will have to suffice for this present discussion.

Do we grant the Roman See the right to prescribe in liturgical matters?

This question needs to be examined at several levels.

The Holy Father most certainly has the authority to prescribe in liturgical matters. In the case of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Recension, it is the Holy See that has prepared and promulgated the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension. It was our Ruthenian bishops who made the request of Rome to prepare and promulgate these liturgical books. [I am not sure that the Eastern Congregation actually has the authority to allow each diocese / national Church within the Ruthenian (or any recension) to revise the Divine Liturgy to suit local taste. Rome certainly does not allow this lack of uniformity within the Latin Church.]

We must also note that the Roman See, at the time she prepared and promulgated the liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension, did not undertake a general revision of the Ruthenian Recension. She did her best to produce a set of liturgical books that accurate reflected the Ruthenian Orthodox usage before the unions with Rome. One may seek revisions based upon new and superior scholarship but that is quite a different question than the current reforms, which are based on pastoral desire more than anything else. Even here, however, such revisions should only be made at the level of the entire Ruthenian Recension.

Now Father David may argue that Rome has already approved the Ruthenian Church in America�s revisions to the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and that it is merely waiting for the Council of Hierarchs to promulgate it. I would have to agree with him here in his point on the Eastern Congregation having authority.

But this is where things get complicated. Rome has also approved the revisions to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by the Ruthenian Church in Slovakia. A few of these revisions by the Ruthenian Church in Slovakia are in line with the proposed revisions of the Ruthenian Church in America, but mostly the Slovak revisions are in a quite different direction. What are we to conclude from this? Is Rome encouraging the creation of new liturgical recensions while at the same time actively legislating for stricter liturgical uniformity within the Latin Church? Father David has previously argued on this Forum the need for liturgical uniformity. Is this a need only within the Ruthenian Church in America? Does not this need for uniformity extend to all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension, both Catholic and Orthodox? Or, at a higher level, does not this need for liturgical uniformity � allowing for recensions � extend to the level of the entire Byzantine Church, both Catholic and Orthodox? If not, why not?

If Father David agrees for the need for uniformity across national boundaries is he willing to recommend that we adopt the liturgical revisions already promulgated in Slovakia? If not, why not? Just how important is the need for uniformity among Ruthenians, both Catholic and Orthodox? Can we really justify this creating of not just a Third Way but even a Fourth Way and a Fifth Way? We must remember that, while some of the revisions that Father David has recommended can be found in individual Orthodox parishes, no Orthodox jurisdiction currently has plans to promulgate a revision of the Liturgy mandating any of the revisions currently enacted in 3 of our eparchies. Archbishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has spoken several times about his admiration for the �Orthodox Liturgical Books published by Rome� (referring to the official Ruthenian books). If the Orthodox Churches are looking to renew the liturgy to the standards prepared by Rome, does not the argument for uniformity support a restoration of our Ruthenian recension to these same official books?

Father David states that the Ruthenian Church in America is treating the official books as a model for the liturgy. I find this very distressing. Our official English language liturgicons should be an exact translation (as literal as is possible while still using good grammar and style) of the official books. Nothing more and nothing less. This is the only way we can keep some sort of uniformity with the other local Churches of the Ruthenian Recension and with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Even the Latin Church is retreating from employing overly free translations. Any minor rubrical and / or textual changes must be made by all the local Churches of the Ruthenian Recension, both Catholic and Orthodox. Any major changes (those beyond the level of the Ruthenian Recension) must be made by the entire Byzantine Church � Orthodox and Catholic. [Yes, I know that some will argue that the Orthodox Church will not get to examining and possibly revising the Liturgy for a few more generations but there really is no hurry here. At least there should not be.]

If uniformity and ecumenism are important we should be restoring our Liturgy to match that provided in the official books. We should not be asking the legislator (Rome) to legislate unique versions of the Divine Liturgy for America, Slovakia and each country in which the Ruthenian Church has a presence. Rome does have the authority to do this but for her to do this violates the Liturgical Prescriptions she has promulgated.

The way forward I recommend is the following:

1. The Council of Hierarchs should return to the 1964 translation of the liturgicon and reaffirm that the rubrics contained therein are our standard.

2. The Council of Hierarchs should invite all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension � Catholic and Orthodox � to jointly conduct a review of the liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension, taking into consideration recent scholarship and legitimate, natural liturgical growth within the Byzantine Church as a whole (Catholic and Orthodox). Adjustments to the Ruthenian Recension would then be agreed and acted upon by all the Churches together.

3. The Council of Hierarchs should invite all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension in the English-speaking world to work together to produce a single English language translation of the Ruthenian liturgical books, and to work with any English-speaking Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) to produce a uniform translation of common texts.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

My wife, who is almost finished packing (for the last two hours) has just asked me to ask you what kind of herbicide one can use for "creeping paschalism."

She is convinced it is all over her tulips in the backyard here!

She won't believe me that it was all a joke . . .

Au revoir!

Alex

Alex,

The remedy for �creeping paschalism� can be found in the Liturgical Books of the Ruthenian Recension published in Rome. The entire collection is not yet available in English but I understand a Ukrainian translation has been prepared and is available. The problem is, however, that you can�t just pick and choose. You gotta get it by the root and the only way is to use the whole set of books as they are written.

Admin

"Creeping Paschalism" comes in many varieties. In Athens one may purchase "Paschal" incense, which is actually very pleasant, and "paschal flowers" (also very pleasant). I don't know if the paschal flowers come from creeper plants, but I could attempt to find out.
While I am in basic agreement with the Administrator's latest post, I might offer a caveat: it is true that the commission had as its goal the restoration of the liturgy as it was at the time of the Union of Brest. But this goal, for a variety of reasons, was not entirely reached at that time. Bishop Lawrence of Edmonton has demonstrated (at least to my satisfaction) that the work of Heraclius Lisowsky was the working basis of the Church-Slavonic books which were eventually published. One must not be too harsh; much material which has since become far more accessible was unavailable to the commission in the late 'thirties and early 'forties.
But it is quite sensible to pose the question as to whether one might not wish to go further in pursuit of that same goal, and undertake some scholarly discussion to pursue the idea.

Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Admin.,

You state:
"I am not sure that the Eastern Congregation actually has the authority to allow each diocese / national Church within the Ruthenian (or any recension) to revise the Divine Liturgy to suit local taste. Rome certainly does not allow this lack of uniformity within the Latin Church... Is Rome encouraging the creation of new liturgical recensions while at the same time actively legislating for stricter liturgical uniformity within the Latin Church? "

The Patriarch/Archbishop with his Synod or the Metropolitan with his Council is competent to legislate liturgical matters after review by the Holy See.

Rome certainly does allow diversity within the Roman Rite. Each countries Liturgical Conference may ask for approval for a variety of texts specific to that country up to and including new Eucharistic Prayers. The Eucharistic Prayer for Various Needs and Occasions was first created and used in Switzerland and was translated and modified for use in Spain, Poland, France, Italy, the US and the Phillipines. Other countries have had unique Eucharistic Prayers approved and used. The Orations of the Roman Mass may be changed and many countries have unique ones to themselves. Even rubrics may be changed. For example the Memorial Acclamation introduction "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" is usually proclaimed by the priest, however in Germany this rubric has been changed and the deacon proclaims this. Zaire(Congo) has many local modifications. Rome's current Instruction is meant to stop abuse not end legitimate and approved inculturation, diversification and pastoral adaptation.

You also state:
"Father David has previously argued on this Forum the need for liturgical uniformity. Is this a need only within the Ruthenian Church in America? Does not this need for uniformity extend to all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension, both Catholic and Orthodox? Or, at a higher level, does not this need for liturgical uniformity � allowing for recensions � extend to the level of the entire Byzantine Church, both Catholic and Orthodox? If not, why not?"

I would think it obvious that our Metropolia as a a sui iuris Church coterminous with a single nation needs one unified liturgical usage. On the Recension level whom are we talking about? Ourselves, the other daughter eparchies and exarchates of Mukachevo, the UGCC, ACROD and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of the US and Canada, the UAOC? The fact that we are talking about autonomous Churches mitigates against the ability of Rome or anyone to try and impose a single liturgical usage. Each Church has the right and ability to propose and make the changes and adaptations it sees fit. To take this away is to ignore their autonomous character. That these Churches could come together and agree on a common usage is highly unlikely because we are talking about different cultures and circumstances. History shows us that left free of over centralization the Liturgy will take on local characteristics. If the Church Universal is enriched by having the differing traditions of the various autonomous Churches, will not a particular tradition be enriched by local adaption rather than rigid uniformity on either the tradition or recension level?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Thanks for the post. I agree that a Patriarch / Major Archbishop or Metropolitan is competent to legislate liturgical matters. There are limitations, however. Looking at the Byzantine Orthodox Churches can you cite a single example of an Orthodox Patriarch / Major Archbishop or Metropolitan who has published a revision of the Divine Liturgy along the lines that is currently being proposed in our Ruthenian Church?

Let�s look at the example of the Roman Catholics (Canon 838 of the Latin Code):

The Congregation for Divine Worship issues a �General Instruction of the Roman Missal� National conferences of bishops issue an appendix to the General Instruction which is published together with it in the Sacramentary. Local bishops may issue liturgical appropriate norms.

The amount of diversity allowed in the liturgical books of the Latin Church is tiny when compared to this major revision of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysosotom for the Ruthenian Recension we are considering. We are also faced with a Liturgical Instruction which clearly demands renewal before reform and the use of the liturgical texts and rubrics of the Byzantine Orthodox Church as a general standard.

Legitimate growth is always appropriate and surely the work of the Spirit. I have never spoken against this and I do not expect the liturgy to remain fixed until the Second Coming. I am only suggesting that this be accomplished by the Church as a whole (Catholic and Orthodox), as appropriate to the recension and worldwide levels of Church. A new priest in Slovakia who is used only to the new Byzantine-Ruthenian-Slovak liturgical recension may find the official texts of the liturgy foreign to him because of differences between the typical editions of the Ruthenian Recension liturgical books and the newly created Ruthenian-Slovak liturgical recension. This priest would be even more confused if he came to America and attempted to celebrate according to the proposed liturgicon (or one of the temporary ones now enforce). I submit that a good study of both the Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Churches and the various instructions for the Latin Church will show that there are limits to uniformity and diversification.

Which specific Churches make up the Ruthenian Recension? The Carpatho-Ruthenian Church (us and Johnstown), the Ukrainian Church (Catholic and Orthodox), the Hungarian Church and parts of the Romanian Church (Catholic and Orthodox), including the local Churches here in America, back in Europe and the daughter Churches throughout the world.

I have never suggested or even implied that Rome should attempt to impose a single liturgical standard for all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension. I have only suggested that Rome has expressed desire for us to work together with the Orthodox Church to produce common texts.

In paragraph 21 of the Liturgical Instruction we read:

I submit that the proposed liturgical revision is not a step to remove any differences in liturgical celebration from the Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian Recension. I further submit that this requirement is one in support of a hoped restoration of unity and that it should take precedence above any idea of a need for each local Church to create an autonomous character. I further submit that it not unlikely that these Churches would come together to prepare common English texts. Both Archbishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown have mentioned their desire for common texts in public on several occasions in the past four or five years.

Does it not make sense that if we are to be one again when full communion is re-established that our priests would already be celebrating from the same liturgicon? This is far more important, in my opinion, than any desire for any local Church to �enrich� the Church by doing it�s own thing with liturgy.

Admin

I thank Incognitus for his post and am in agreement it. As I have often stated, I am not against adjustments to the Ruthenian Recension, especially those based upon better scholarship (due to better available of source material previously unavailable). I am also not against legitimate organic development of Liturgy. What I am against, however, is a unilateral revision of the Liturgy by any Church within the Ruthenian Recension. We must work together. Not only is working together the right thing to do, we are really too small to do otherwise.

Admin,

You state:
"The amount of diversity allowed in the liturgical books of the Latin Church is tiny when compared to this major revision of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysosotom for the Ruthenian Recension we are considering."

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I think just the opposite is true. Having a Eucharistic Prayer unique to a local Church is the greatest diversity that could be allowed and is in fact the foundation of any liturgical rite, and this is in fact allowed in the Roman Rite. On the otherhand, what is proposed for our Metropolia is very minor. The suppression of litanies or taking prayers already there allowed really amount to medium rubrical changes. No texts are being changed let alone new Anaphoras being created.

As for ecumencial implication, the Orthodox are more concerned about us accepting/rejecting Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction than they are whether we do or don't take a couple litanies. It would be nice if everyone using the Ruthenian Recension would get together and decide on a common edition but it is totally unrealistic. The UGCC can't agree on a common usage and we are struggling to promulgate one for our Metropolia. I see no realistic hope of seven or eight jurisdiction including Orthodox ones of coming together and producing a common edition. That being the case, we must move forward and do what is best for us even if it conflicts with Rome's ecumenical policies concerning us.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I applaud the Admin's last post and wholeheartedly agree. I was taken aback to read above that the Ordo has been relegated only to a "model". Certainly described in this sense the Ordo cannot be the practical guide I believe it was intended to be.

I have yet to see compelling academic work which would dispel the liturgical prescriptions of the 1941 Rome Ordo. Bishop Lawrence Huculak's work is certainly the most comprehensive in this field to date. While his work does indeed provide some new information, the evidence presented does not seriously call to question nor contradict the development of the prescriptions of the Ordo. On the contrary, I see his work supporting the efforts of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, Fr. Korolevsky et al. in drafting the 1941 Ordo and reforming the Liturgy to pre-Zamosc norms.

Is liturgical consistency really an issue with the "new liturgy"? I have heard that it is. Consistent with whom? Semingly not with the Orthodox. Nor with the UGCC, whose 1988 UGCC Synodal English/Ukrainian Liturgikon makes a very concerted effort to be consistent with the 1941 Rome Ordo, and which also thus brings her into conformity with most Ukrainian Orthodox liturgical practices.

When one quarter of the Ruthenian rescension is making significant liturgical changes, which will not only not be accepted by other quarters, but may distance her even farther from the rest of those of the Ruthenian rescension, Catholic and Orthodox, is there genuine concern for liturgical consistency?

Like the Admin, I also question the impetus behind the proposed changes. It certainly does not appear to make the "new liturgy" conform more closely with Orthodox or Catholic churches of the Ruthenian Rescension. It seems to this reader, rather, another effort to reinvent the wheel liturgically. Cutting litanies cuts time. Shorter is better? The Latins have tried that approach and were not completely successful.

And in complete agreement with the Admin's statements above, given our size (ever shrinking if one believes the statistics) we need to work together. Perhaps an inter-ecclesial liturgical dialogue would be fruitful. I would think both the UGCC and UOC would be willing to discuss such things (they do so informally already), as would perhaps also the ACROD and possibly also the OCA.

I would conjecture that if we put all of the extant liturgical works on the table, the common usage would not favor the revisions being proposed by the Ruthenian Liturgical Commission.

Just noticed this - I think from Fr. Deacon Lance.
"The Patriarch/Archbishop with his Synod or the Metropolitan with his Council is competent to legislate liturgical matters after review by the Holy See."
Careful! The Metropolitan, even with his Council, has nothing resembling the authority of the Patriarch/Major Archbishop with his Synod!
There is the further consideration that the Holy See (in the Liturgical Instruction) has asked that all the Greek-Catholic Churches should collaborate to produce an instruction on the Byzantine Liturgy. That in turn would appear to favor a unifed understanding of the Byzantine Liturgy.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Incognitus,

"Careful! The Metropolitan, even with his Council, has nothing resembling the authority of the Patriarch/Major Archbishop with his Synod!"

Not according to the Instruction on applying the liturgical prescriptions of the CCEO. The law is identical.

"There is the further consideration that the Holy See (in the Liturgical Instruction) has asked that all the Greek-Catholic Churches should collaborate to produce an instruction on the Byzantine Liturgy. That in turn would appear to favor a unifed understanding of the Byzantine Liturgy."

Yet the Holy See continues to approve local adaptations, so I don't think it can really be said the Holy See feels a unified usage is all that important.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Deacon Lance writes that the authority of a Patriarch, a Major Archbishop, and/or a Metropolitan of a sui iuris Church in liturgical matters is all one and the same. Sorry to contradict, but this is not the case. There are two problems here which are causing confusion. First, the very concept of "sui iuris Church" is slippery and elusive - but many people have complained about that. Second, the Code of Canons is written sloppily and in an arcane functional variety of language which is difficult to read accurately (this is one means that the canonists use in an effort to keep the rest of us from knowing what they are saying).
However, it is not that difficult to notice the practice of the Holy See. When raising the Syro-Malabar Church from a Metropolitanate (or in fact two Metropolitanates) sui iuris to a Major Archepiscopal Church, Pope John Paul II reserved all liturgical matters to himself. The Holy See did no such thing when the same Church so long as it was one (or two) Metropolitanate(s), because a Metropolitan of a sui iuris Church does not have that authority anyway.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Incognitus,

Please read the CCEO and the Instruction. The Metropolitan head of a sui iuris Church with the Council of Hierarchs is competent to legislate liturgical matters. Our own new proposed liturgy being an example. The Syro-Malabar Church is not a good example because until this past year they were functionally a Major Archeparchial Church in name only, the Holy See reserving liturgical legislation and appointment of bishops to itself due to the factionalization in that Church over the direction of their Liturgy.

The fact that the Holy See did not do so when the Church was two metropolitanates was because while metropolitanates they were in the same situation as the Italo-Greeks: two equal jurisdictions without a designated head making them the same as an Eparchial Church sui iuris and the Holy See has already reserved liturgical legisaltion to itself unless otherwise stipulated in these Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I have most assuredly read both the CCEO and the Instruction. Face it, the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate is neither a Patriarchate nor a Major Archepiscopal Church, and does not have the rights which such Churches have.
Moreover, the Ruthenian Recension does not exist in a vacuum. Rome produced those books in response to the direct, written request of ALL the hierarchs who use what could vaguely be called the Ruthenian-Slavonic Liturgy. To claim that one Metropolitanate can now alter those books in a drastic form at its own preference is unconvincing.
I go further. It would be possible, even easy, to produce some scholarly research demonstrating that in particular matters the books from Rome did not succeed in restoring the Liturgy exactly as it was at the time of the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod. So it might not be unreasonable for a specific jurisdiction to make some adjustments TO BRING THE LITURGY CLOSER TO THAT STATED IDEAL. But what seems to be under consideration is more reminiscent of Thomas Cranmer than of Saint Peter Mohyla.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus