www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy

Dear Members,
I have noted with some curiosity the examples of the Ukrainian Liturgy on the web and I notice that there is no second antiphon. What is the rationale for this? The two remaining antiphons are still the first and third antiphons, oddly enough. Does this mean that the second antiphon is restored on special occasions, perhaps a pontifical Divine Liturgy?

Yours in Christ,
Paul

In the official service book for the Divine Liturgy (the red one usually used by the clergy) as published by the Synod of the Hierachy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1988, the second antiphon is printed in a frame with the following note: "With the permission of the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy the parts of the Liturgy enclosed in a frame can be omitted." However, in the poopular pew edition of the Divine Liturgy, the one most are familiar with, the second antiphon is missing completely.

There are other inconsistencies as well. For instance, according to the service book used by the clergy, the faithful are to pray the Prayer before Communion after the Sacred Mysteries are shown to the faithful with the words: "Approach with the fear of God and with faith."

Again, the ektenies for the catechumens are enclosed in a frame in the service used by the clery and completely ommitted in the pew edition.

Again, the addition of the warm water in not enclosed in a frame but oddly has square brackets around it in both editions of the service book.

All the books are printed by Basilian Press in Toronto.

It seems that IF THE POSSIBILITY of omission exists that it OUGHT to happen.

A diamond is best appreciated with ALL of its facets.

fr. michael

And speaking of which...

Whence cometh all the "pewbook" directions to "sit", "stand", and "kneel"???

Them's not in the official Red Book!

What's the Patriarchal or Synodal authority to interpolate rubrics as one pleases apparently? Or am I mistaken?



Herb....

The abbreviations authorized by the Ukrainian Patriarch and Synod are facultative, NOT prescriptive. The right to serve the complete Divine Liturgy remains intact (and if one exercises this right, then the Divine Liturgy itself remains intact!). It seems self-contradictory, not to use stronger terms, to proclaim a "decade of evangelism" and wax eloquent about the need to evangelize, while simultaneously omitting the litany prayers for the catechumens! If there are no catechumens, then go out and get some! Incognitus

Dear Paul, this represents the Ukrainian way of abbreviating the Liturgy. The Ruthenians have their own unique abbreviations as well.

The Typical Psalms and Beatitudes are also an option in the UGCC Synodal Liturgikon. Unfortunately in the 1988 pew books there is no text for Psalm 145 or the Second Antiphon.

But as I alluded the Ukrainians are not alone in these types of inconsistencies. The Ruthenian Levkulic pew books which are the mainstay in many parishes, do not have any verses for the third Antiphon, only the refrain.

This also presents an interesting difference between the Ukrainian and Ruthenian usage. The Ukrainian usage appoints the Little Entrance at the Third Antiphon, as appointed in the Ordo, while with the Ruthenians the Entrance often occurs at the Hymn to the Incarnation since the Third Antiphon is generally reduced to just the antiphon itself and no verses. Traditionally there was never an entrance at the Hymn of Justinian.

Also while the first and third antiphon are taken in their entirety in Ukrainian usage, the first and second refrains are often run together in Ruthenian usage without the interspersed verses.

So basically to get to the point both the current Ukrainian and Ruthenian usages of the Divine Liturgy as contained in the pew books are the result of various liturgical shortcuts.

A more complete UGCC English pew book is currently being drafted privately which mirrors the full celebration of the Divine Liturgy as contained in the Liturgikon. Hopefully this will meet with eventual hierarchal approval.

Do you mean the pew edition being worked on by Fathers Roman and Peter Galadza, John Sianchuk, Prof. Thompson et al.?

The problem with making provision for abbreviations is that they will fall out of use. People forget about them, and what was once the norm now is exotic. There is still hope for our liturgy, but it's fading fast (notice the complete omission of the second antiphon in the "pew book".) Let's not sentence these wonderful practices to the same fate as ode 2 and tone 7 Bulgarian (if there ever was one).

Father, bless!

Fr. Michael, this is another version but was certainly inspired by the "Cantors Five" version of Frs. Peter and Roman Galadza, Joe Roll et. al. Their version still omits the Second Antiphon or Psalm 145 of Typika. I can give you more information if you desire privately.

This version will include all of the litanies, Psalms of Typika, all three antiphons. As I mentioned it is being privately produced. Right now it is only planned in English

Illya, Ode 2 is still prominent during times of Fast, specifically Great Lent. The liturgical theme of Ode 2 is penetential, hence its use is restricted now to the Great Fast. It is certainly still with us if the Great Canon and Matins are celebrated during the Great Fast.

As for Tone 7 Bulgarian, that is an interesting issue. In the Galician tradition Bulharski became generally limited to Litya stikhera (with a few exceptions like "Nyni Otpushchaeshi" in Tone 5 Bulgarian). My personal opinion on Tone 7's disappearance or non existance is very few Litya stikhera were ever composed in Tone 7.

More signficant, and tragic, however is the fact that serving the Vigil with Litya itself has fallen into disuse for many years. In Prostopinje chant even more Bulgarian tones are missing than Tone 7.

yeah, I know about ode 2.
I actually think there may have never been a tone 7 Bulgarian. In Jordanville we learned that there was never any Tone 7 Bulgarian in th eKievan tradition, and it is by way of Kiev that we got most of our music.
I guess it was a weak argument to begin with. How about the omission of troparia at the beatitudes? There thats a good one.

Ilya

I'll go with you on that one. Those troparia and the Beautitudes themselves are such gems of theology. Even the OCA has unfortunately ommitted those troparia from the Beatitudes in many parishes.

While I don't disagree that the development of the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes is a later one liturgically, specifically with regard to the Slavic liturgy, the praise of the Typical Psalms as well as the living teaching of our Lord in the Beatitudes to me is one of my favorite aspects of the Divine Liturgy.

I greatly prefer the later received order with the typical Psalms and Beatitudes for most Sundays and keep the Antiphons for Paschal time and other special feasts.

May God grant Daniel Olson and the St. John of Kronstadt Press folks many years for their wonderful work in translating and making available all of those pearls from the Slavonic Oktoechos (like all of the troparia at the Beatitudes, those wonderful Canons to the Theotokos from Compline, Canons to the Holy Trinity at Sunday Midnight Office, etc.) from Jordanville into English.

Ilya:

Are you trying to make a political statement by spelling Kyiv that way you do or are you just trying to p**s people off?

Oh, and what's up with the statement of "it is by way of Kiev [sic] that we got most of our music." Are we not the Church of Kyiv?

Just wondering.

hal

Amen!

Musically, Kiev and Galicia have their own musical traditions. The musical tradition of Galicia was heavily influenced by Kievan music. If our church is kievan then why don't we follow the vulgata? I am sorry, our church is a Galician one. I am not even sure I like the prospect of "patriarch" (or whatever he is)moving to Kiev. Why cause more friction when he can do the same thing from Lvov.

As for my language, I prefer old ukrainian or church slavonic when it comes to terminology. I am old fashioned and don't buy into the changing of "o's" to "i's" and "g's" to "h's". I can's stand it when ukrainians insist on pronouncing it 'Haladza'. I am sorry, that's just stupid.
Kyiivo-Pecherska Lavra also sounds dumb. Don't get me started on 'mnohii lita' or 'z nami Bih'.
Changing a language for the purpose of being different (in this case from russian) is not a good excuse.
Don't get me wrong -Ukrainian is a beautiful language- much softer and delicate than russian. I was told at Jordanville that the two best two languages to sing in are Italian and Ukrainian. But old ukrainian, spoken in a central dialect, is absolutely gorgeous.

I hope you understand and don't hold it against me.

Ilya

Please! Let �The Church of Kiev� = �The Church of Kyiv�.

Even the official Ukrainian-English transliteration system adopted in 1996 by the government of Ukraine made allowances for historic and well-known transliterations of Ukrainian terms in official English translations of legislative and official documents. Surely flexibility is in order here?

Let�s not start a spelling war.

no - you are not the administrator of my keyboard.
haha

oh, and um, thanks for locking my profile. You're a champ!

It is too bad that there is no possibility of a revolution on the forum so we could overthrow the tyrannous administrator and his avatar-opressing, spelling controlling regime. Vive le forum Libre!

oh i'm just screwin' around. have a sense of humour.