Originally posted by Lance:
Tony,
Arranz, Taft, Mateos, and Petras (as far as I know)and more importantly the Commission that produced the 1942 Ruthenian Liturgicon.
From the Circular of the Eastern Congregation to Ruthenian Ordinaries, Prot. #1219/28, Rome, Sept. 10, 1941:
"1. In the first place, the existance of a distinct Ruthenian Recension has been established. This Recension is older than the recension commonly called the vulgate (i.e. Russian), because the Ruthenian books had not been corrected (as the vulgate books were) on the basis of the Greek Editions printed at the beginning of the 17th century. The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it reflects older texts, deserves to be preferred" (Ordo Celebrationis, an English Translation Pg 112).
Now the Eastern Congregation may have many failings but its scholarship was never one of them and the Orthodox have relied on them for the correction of their own books. I assume had they not established that we had an authentic Recension they would have required us to use the Vulgate.
In Christ,
Lance
PS email when you feel well enough to go out
Thanks Lance for your reply. As you know, I had classes at BC Seminary with Petras, and I discussed this with him. I think your conclusions about his opinion may not be accurate.
Arranz, Mateos and Taft have all produced copious works, can you cite specific texts which support this position?
I think that perhaps the key is the wording of the Vatican document itself, if it is to be accepted. It says "The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it reflects older texts, deserves to be preferred" The point here seems to be about texts, it does not say "the Ruthenian Recension, inasmuch as it reflect older traaditions/usages/rubrics" it says texts.
Modern Ruthenian usage is vastly more similar to modern Russian or Greek usage than the pre-Nikonian. I think that a visit to any authetic Old Believer (pre-Nikonian) parish and service would make this painfully evident.
Tony
