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

Diak says the Hymn of Emperor Justinian (O Monogenis) was never an entrance chant; I seem to recall reading in Dix and possibly Taft that it was at some point. I am not saying this is why the Ruthenians developed the practice (there were other reasons), but in the Great Church there may have been a time when it was used as such. I will have to look into this if I get a chance (but since after class I have to go to work, it isn't likely).

Dave

So does this mean you think that we should stay in our little Western Ukrainian corner of the world and not work toward a unified Ukrainian Church? Lest you forget, it was the Kyivan Metropolitan that signed the unia in the first place.


I'm going to give you the lawyer's answer on this one - it depends. In certain contexts it is appropirate and in others it is not. The linguists can tell us. However, the artificial russifying of the Ukrainian language is something than needs to be reversed for my people to understand who they are and where they came from.

What would you prefer then?


"Bih?" That's just linguistically wrong, unless you are referring to someone running.

I take issue with your premise. No one is changing a language. There are simply those who wish to rid it of russifications that were forced upon it over the last several centuries - most notably the 20th. Remember that one?

You mean they actually recognize Ukrainian as a language in its own right and not dialect of Russian? Wow! Progress.

As for speaking "old ukrainian," I'm not sure to what you refer. The language that my parents, grandparents and, subsequently, I speak has been referred to by people in Ukraine who do not know better as "old."

All about one's perspective, I guess.

hal

Dave, the Hymn of Justinian was appended later and was a joint statement of faith reaffirming the 5th Ecumenical Council (Chaldedon) denouncing specifically Monophysitism.

It was intended by its insertion to be sung together as a credo of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, a statement of faith, and thus I think not intended to be broken by an entrance. We don't have an entrance at the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, instead we all sing it together as a statement of faith. By its nature and content the Hymn of Justinian is clearly (at least to me) not an entrance hymn or processional antiphon.

Besides, if all of the original scriptural verses originally present would be recited for the Antiphons, there would been no reason for additional "filler" for a procession.

How about istead of working for a unified ukrainian church, we work for a unified CHURCH. And it was Kievan hierarchs that were forced to flea northward, because of invasion, that caused the establishment of the Moscow metropolia and eventually Patriarchate. Should we not also strive for reconciliation with our brothers to the north- the continuation of church of Kiev?

As for Kiev signing the unia- they realized what they got into a lot faster than we did.
I am just happy that monasteries like the Kievo-Pecherska and Pochaevska Lavras didn't remain in the hands of basilians (shudder).

Wasn't the Hymn of the Incarnation the Tropar of the Nativity, thus the patronal one of Hagia Sophia? I recall reading that somewhere. That would put it into a troparion category, no?

ilya

Ilya,

Your statement that "old Ukrainian, spoken in a central dialect, is absolutely gorgeous" is a viewed shared by many. In fact many Ukrainians in the diaspora consider Halych (Galicia) and Zakarpattia (Carpatho-Rusyn) Ukrainian as being too 'contaminated' by the languages of various neighbours who ruled Ukraine at one time or another(ie; Poland, Hungary, etc...). My parents worked hard to find teachers from the Poltava region of Ukraine (post WW2 immigrants) to teach us Ukrainian at Saturday school. They did not consider Halych Ukrainaian as good as 'Poltavska' Ukrainian.

During the 1930's during Joseph Stalin's brutal campaign against everything Ukrainian, the dictor made artificial changes to the language so that it would sound more like Russian. For example, the Ukrainians have both a "G" and "H" letter in their alphabet. The Russians have only "G". As part of the process of Russification of the Ukrainian language, Ukrainians were forced to pronouce all "H" as "G". To use the letter "H" instead of "G" in literature could mean loss of employment, exile, or even death.

I understand your frustration with the changes, because the first time I visited Ukraine (Soviet era) the Russians kept telling me my mother's maiden name (on my passport) was Golubowich when infact my grandfather (and my mother) always refered to themselves as Holubowich. To use your words, I too "was old fashioned, and didn't buy into changing the "H's" to "G's".

My grandfather had the same experience. Imagine, my grandfather left Ukraine in the 1920's to come back for a visit in the 1970's and the Russians insisted he was Mr Golubowich and not Mr Holubowich. He insisted he too "was old fashioned" and prefered Holubowich to Golubowich.

Ilya, you must understand the brutal policies of the past Soviet regime to understand why Ukrainians are attempting to reclaim their religious heritage, culture, and language. I'm confident that if you like the "old central dialect of Ukrainian" you will like it even more once it has been de-sovietized (de-russified).

I have heard it referred to as the Troparion of Justinian, so it would make sense.

Ilya,
For me it wouldn't be a problem at all if our Northern neighbors accepted the Kyivan Patriarchate. This is where it all started after all. The real and authentic true seat of the Patriarchate is to be Kyiv and not Moscow and the officail language in Ukraine is Ukrainian by the way not Russian.
Lauro

I understand the russification of the language, and the central dialect i speak of IS the de-russified one. I agree that they had no right to change what was a beautiful language. But from the other side, ukrainians (mostly galicians) are doing the same thing by trying to change the language into something its not.

Keep the h's, keep the g's, let the o's be.

Dear Administrator,

The accepted term today is "Kyiv" and "Kiev" is the way contemporary Muscovites (who call themselves "Russians") refer to it as they still consider their "Little Russia" to be their backyard.

I've yet to see any Ukrainian embassy anywhere accept "Kiev" and I've spoken to the former Prime Minister of Ukraine who said that "only Russian imperialists" use the term "Kiev" in Ukraine and he hopes that no one uses it anywhere else.

If you continue to insist on using "Kiev," I'll insist on referring to your country as rebellious colonies that by right belong to Britain.

Alex

Where did I ever say in my speech about the beautiful UKRAINIAN language that it is not the language of ukraine?

A new Patriarchate, in the orthodox sense, must be established by the other orthodox patriarchs. This was done in Moscow- officially. To say that Kiev should be the seat of the Patriarch is just wrong. Patriarch Philaret of Kiev is basically a cry baby that didn't get elected in Moscow -so he doesn't count. However the Metropolitan of Kiev has always been held in great regard by Moscow. Having a Patriarch in Kiev wouldn't make sense since there already is an established Patriarch of Rus', flawed as he may be. The only argument for establishing a Ukrainian Patriarchy is ukrainian nationalism, which is not a good enough reason.
Of course I am speaking of the above in an orthodox sense. Having the head of a primarily galician flock in kiev just doesn't make sense. He should be in the midst of his flock. There is already too much church war-mongring in Eastern Ukraine.

Dear Gavshev,

Yes, the Kyivan Metropolitans moved northwards because of enemy attacks on Kyiv, but they STILL called themselves "Metropolitans of Kyiv" and Moscow usurped that.

Moscow basically took over the St Andrew tradition of Kyiv and it was on that basis that it declared a patriarchate for itself.

Moscow is the daughter of Kyiv, an ungrateful daughter at that.

Your loving brother,

Alex

It has been referred to occaisionally as "tropar" but "troparia" can be a wide variety of propers. But then again, I have seen historically what are generally referred to as stikhera referred to as 'troparia'. I have seen the Hymn of Justinian/Incarnation much more often, however, referred to as "Song" or "Hymn" and not "tropar".

One older Greek Liturgikon I have introduces this hymn as "the hymn of faith in the divinity of Christ and His incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection composed by Justinian".

Regardless of terminology, the Hymn of Justinian was inserted as a creed reaffirming the 5th Council which is generally accepted. No Orthodox Ordo I have seen has appointed any entrance at all during this Hymn but rather any notes at all give instructions like "sung together by clergy and faithful" "sung with fervor" etc.

The evidence just isn't there to substantiate it was ever intended as a processional or anything other than a sung credo when other antiphons were already present for several hundred years (Egeria notes these nearly two hundred years before Justinian) for that purpose.

It makes perfect sense to insert this during the Liturgy of the Word, as the whole issue decided by the 5th Council surrounded the nature of the Logos. But hey, this all just my opinion anyway. Why can't we be friends...

Diak:

I am only saying what I have read. You can check "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Gregory Dix, chapter 13 (page 450) and "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom" by Casimir Kucharek, chapter 24 (pages 373-376). Both these texts state that O Monogenes was used as an entrance chant in Constantinople. They cite other sources, but I'm in a hurry, so that's the best I can do.

Also, if I understand these books correctly, it was written in opposition to Nestorianism, not Monophysitism.

Dave

Dear Dave,

Yes, against Nestorianism.

I understand that the Cherubic Hymn was written as a confession of Orthodox faith (shared by both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches) by none other than St Severus of Antioch.

(?)

Alex