www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vladikou i sviachtenonatchalnika

Diak, I agree that as Byzantines, one of the more beautiful aspects of our ritual tradition is that such an amount of creative variety exists among our various usages. That is indeed true "unity in diversity" and it is the result of the ability of the church to employ "enculturation" - the use of the genius of each culture in enhancing divine worship.

Just as the Roman Church now promotes the use of various cultural practices of the local church in liturgy, so too our church has done this through liturgical chant, particular hymns, customs and style (recension). While our liturgy does not have the same leverage to incorporate entire aspects that are representative of the local culture into portions of the mass per say (dances, costume, and other folk customs), we have done this through the other means above.

I emphasize our particular Ruthenian recension (which is shared by both Ukrainians and Rusyns, with some local variety) here and in other places, in order to share its own unique beauty with those who may not be aware of some of our treasures. Many of our particular and especially the more obscure aspects such as the "Voshel Jesi" are little known outside the Ruthenian Church. That is all the more what motivates me to share a detailed portrayal of them here, in a place where interest in this can be encouraged. When one delves into some of these traditions, it becomes evident just how thought out they were and demonstrates the ability to combine culture, liturgy and scripture to create a synthesis that draws the heart and mind towards God.

I'm sure the other cultures have done the same thing and would be interested to learn about them too. Certainly one way is not superior to another.

I hope that as you and others share my love for our common heritage, we can in turn share it with the Byzantine communities at large. Keep up your dedicated service to our church, which surely is a great asset to your pastor and parish.

Double Eagle, I agree completely with you regarding the rendering of Slavonic chant with eison. I don't remember if you were the one on the other thread where we discussed this. Many chants can really be enhanced by rendering them this way. So much of the Galician and Rusyn chant is created perfectly for the addition of an eison. It takes but one cantor to lead and a person or persons to hold and change the bottom note. The ancient Byzantine origin of many of these chants, especially the ones less used and thus, less changed over the centuries, naturally falls into place with the sustaining tone. It does give the sound of the music an entirely different flavor, which is shocking for some when hear it. I wonder if our Administrator has ever had the time to delve into this aspect of our music in some of his wonderful musical endeavors.

Fr. Joe

Lemko Rusyn wrote:

"Would that this have been what he actually said, his words would not have caused the pain that they did. (And I don't mean just to me.) That one word JUST and I could have assented to, even applauded, this statement. However, the lack of that one word changed the tone of his homily entirely. Instead of it indicating an openness to all peoples (which I firmly support), it said "this is who we were; it is who we are no more.""

I actually had the type of the 75th anniversary Liturgy. My copy had the entire service, including the sermon in it's entirety. Unfortunately my vcr was hungry one day and ate the tape. I'm trying to remember, but I believe that the Metropolitan said that our church was "JUST NOT" for Rusyns, etc. I would have been upset too if he had made such an ex-clusive remark. I can't imagine that he would have. Anyone know if there are still copies available? I'd love to get another.

Regarding the Russian (read "Muscovite") practice of singing Dostojno Jest (or other appointed zadostojnik) as the bishop enters the church: Fr. Joe said that it is used to convey the imagery of bishop as type of the Theotokos/church. I don't believe this to be the case. While modern Russians may ascribe this symbolism, I believe it originated with the pre-Nikonion practice of the Entrance and Departure bows, still done by the Old Believers. These "bows" were done upon entering and exiting the church (and even homes, I think) and consisted of three pokloni, "Dostojno Jest... Glory...now and Ever... Lord, have mercy. (3x) Lord bless. Lord Jesus Christ, through the prayers of Your most-pure Mother and all the saints, have mercy on me a sinner." The Russian entrance of a bishop consists of the deacon saying "Wisdom" and (while the choir sings Dostojno Jest) "More honorable... Glory...now and ever... Lord have mercy (3x) Master bless" then the Entrance Prayers begin.

It is interesting that even though the Russian church did not appoint the laity to continue the Entrance and Departure bows, they retained it for the entrance of a bishop.

Now, this really has no bearing on the unique liturgical heritage of the Ruthenian church. While some may chide Vos^el Jesi as "para-liturgical" I think that in the context of the Ruthenian tradition, it fits perfectly. I wonder if it was not done often these days since most English versions (at least that I have heard) are a little "forced." They just don't flow as well as the Slavonic. At least that's what I think.

I wonder if Vos^el Jesi (with all 3 or 4 verses) was used during the public vesting of a bishop (if done)? Hmm... anybody know?

S'Bohom,

Dave

Dave:

I think that your research on the Russian episcopal entrance rites is very well done. While I did not have much knowledge of pre-Nikonian entrance and departure bows, your correlation of them with the use of "Dostoijno Jest'" makes perfect sense. Prior to this explanation, I only had recourse to the contemporary "spiritualized" interpretation of the reason that it is used for the bishop's entrance and frankly, always found that explanation to be a bit "forced" as is often the case when customs that originally had a practical or other-related purpose are given new symbolism, once the original setting has fallen into disuse.

While I do not disagree with the image of the bishop as representative of the church and the Mother of God as the Christian "par excellence" I always felt that the choice to join these two into a spiritualized entrance rite did not create a "functional symbol" - i.e. - that it is not obvious enough on its own to be understood by those to whom it is conveyed, without burdensome, and far-stretched explanations of its meaning. A "functional" or "living symbol" is meant to naturally convey its typos or the underlying meaning to which it points, without having to resort to a theological explanation of it, outside its place in worship. If it were not considered ahead of time, I don't think that the average person, clergy or lay, would recognize the connection between the bishop, the church and the Theotokos, merely by the singing of the Dostoijno Jest' as the hierarch enters the church.

Our opinions being as they are, I do not think that the current Muscovite practice is inherently wrong for them to use, but only that it is but one of a variety of entrance-rite (enarxis) customs. What concerned me is that I have seen this particular custom used recently in some of our pontifical celebrations, which speaks to me of an automatic imitation of what is common Russian Orthodox practice, without attention to its reason for existing (as you have intuitively pointed out to us), or even the current day "spiritualized" interpretation. In my humble opinion, we need to research these things carefully and weigh their value against what is our established practice (even if the changed rubric is given in the more recent Roman version of the pontifical), and also consider the effective use of symbolism and the message it may or may not convey to our congregations.

I have an interest in the question of "the new pontifical" as everyone here knows, and would love to have the opportunity someday to do a scholarly comparison of it with the Ruthenian recension pontificals which it supposedly superceded. Maybe that chance will come one day, but up until now, I have been unable to locate any original manuscripts that contain the hierarchical liturgy portion of our former archieratikon, in order to do research and make a comparison. I have heard of copies that exist in various libraries, but have not been able to travel to those places in order to spend the needed amount of time in research. I'm still anxious to get a photo-copy of the late 19th. century Lviv edition (and earlier versions) as well as any other manuscripts that pertain to this topic. Unless other works have been done, that I'm not aware of, I think it would make for a valuable study.

Thanks, Reader Dave, for your valuable contribution to this topic. It has satisfied my curiosity about the reasons for the choice of this particular order in the Muscovite usage. God bless you.

Fr. Joe

David�s post is very interesting. I am wondering if perhaps the origin of this custom is that one a bishop happened to enter the church during the ninth ode of Matins or at the tale end of another service when the �More honorable� was being sung and a new custom was born?

--

ISTM that was is needed is a good translation of the official book for the hierarchical Divine Liturgy (archieratikon) according to the Ruthenian Recension which was published by Rome in the 1940s. That is the book we should be following.

--

Five or six years ago I had the privilege of cantoring at a diaconial ordination for Metropolitan Judson (Eternal Memory!). When we discussed the specifics for the Divine Liturgy I asked him whether he wanted either �Voshel Jesi� or �Dostonjo Jest� sung as he entered (I had made the case that if �Voshel Jesi� was to be sung that it should be sung in Slavonic since it doesn�t work very well in English). He directed me to sing �Dostonjo Jest� and assured me that it was not only a Russian custom but part of our tradition, too.

Administrator,

When Bishop Basil ... err, Archbishop Basil visited us for our parish 25th anniversary a few years back, we were instructed not to sing anything as he entered the temple since HE, the bishop, is the hymn.

In the early church, didn't the people wait outside when the bishop or patriarch arrived?

Joe Thur

Joe,

Yeah, I�ve heard of stuff like this and IMHO it is plain silly. The general argument is that since the Office of the Three Antiphons and the Trisagion were originally part of the entrance rites we shouldn�t add any opening hymns before the Divine Liturgy. These folks are very well intentioned but they don�t realize that it has been well over a thousand years since these hymns ceased being entrance hymns and became an integral part of the Divine Liturgy. We don�t need to reform the liturgy. We need to celebrate it as we have received it.

Admin

"These folks are very well intentioned but they don't realize that it has been well over a thousand years since these hymns ceased being entrance hymns and became an integral part of the Divine Liturgy."

Interesting how bishops still do not enter the altar until those hymns are finished. They are quasi-processional hymns. Paul Bradshaw has written extensively on the history of liturgical development and has offered at least ten criteria for understanding liturgy, especially its development. One criterion considers how feast days and episcopal liturgies brings out distinctions between old liturgical forms and newer forms. The fact that our bishops do not enter the altar until after the antiphons reflect "layers of tradition" and not one monolithic rite, whereby older forms simply die out and are permanently replaced by newer ones. Not so in the Byzantine traditions. Today, our bishop enters AFTER the people are already in the temple - not so Byzantine - and before the antiphons are completed, all of which indicates nothing has begun in the way of liturgy, hence no singing. Today's liturgical form permits a later development to be inserted between the bishop's entrance into the temple and his later entrance into the altar. Any theology of an entrance has to take such a discombobulation of overlaying developments into consideration. Our liturgy is more akin to a bachelor's interior decoration (a little bit of this and a little bit of that from different years) than any one particular style.

"L'etat, c'est moi."

"I am Tradition."

No thanks.

Well, folks ... it looks like we just don't know what IS right.

How about axing everything before the formal entrance rites and initial blessing? This way, we can actually utilize those hymns before liturgy (an organic development and extension of an already lengthy beginning?) as real entrance hymns? Just a thought.

Joe Thur wrote:
--Well, folks ... it looks like we just don't know what IS right.�

I disagree. Our bishops (here and in Europe) requested that Rome produce a complete set of official liturgical books for the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church and they did just that in the 1940s. These liturgical books include a complete edition of the archieratikon. All that we need to do is prepare a faithful and exacting translation of these books into English. Nothing could be simpler.

But we�re getting off topic. Perhaps someone would start a separate thread if they wish to continue this new topic?

Administrator,

I am personally in favor of the Ordo Celebrationis. I don't know if our bishops are. It took several decades for some eparchies to promulgate it.

Not wanting to get off the topic, but isn't the question whethere we should sing ANYTHING related to the theology of the entrance rite? Are hymns
sung for fun or does there have to be a reason?

"Our people possessed a genius, as I said recently, to integrate the focal points of scripture and tradition into practical, useful tools that enhanced the liturgy. ... As we have seen, many peoples have a tradition of special entrance songs or hymns that accompany the entrance of a hierarch into the church. Theologically, this image is important because it represents the liturgy "par excellence" - in ecclesiology, the Eucharistic model in which the bishop, as representative of Christ, is always the chief celebrant and presider."

Fr. Joe's words are excellent. But how do we theologize the split between the entrance of the bishop into the temple and the entrance of the bishop into the altar. The previous processional antiphons, Great Litany and Only-Begotten Hymn are now "inserts" between the beginning and end of the bishop's entrance process ... kinda like the commemorations sung by the clergy during the Great Entrance, which splits up the Cherubikon into two halves. The Latins today have returned to an entrance rite (with only one hymn being sung) unbroken.

Fr. Taft was right when he stated that the entrance rites was one of three "soft spots" of our liturgy - the transfer of the gifts being the second and the communion and dismissal rites being the third. Would it seem that these soft spots is what makes rites?

My Church lives here in my memories and those who've gone before me, and across the pond. It's not present here in the USA anymore.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hey, that sounds like what we traditional RC's experience. I guess that there is trouble everwhere we go?

Robert

John,

you are correct. I remember the homily because it sounded similar to the homily that Bishop George, then Eparch of Van Nuys, gave at the consecration and enthronement of the late Metropolitan Judson.

Had the late Metropolitan spoke the words Lemko Rusyn attributes to him, this forum and others would have been lit up with posts criticizing him.

John

Lemko,

"L'etat c'est moi" is MY saying! I am the State, or so said King Louis XIV. Just so no one else claims it, my other French monarchical saying is "Let them eat cake"...haha jk.

ChristTeen287