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

Thanks for the bried geography lesson, I have seens maps before and I have travelled.

2/3 of Romania? In any event, like I said I have travelled thru this area and am somwewhat familiar with it.

I think it is be fair to say that Transylvania (Ardeal/Erdely) falls within the Ruthenian or Carpathian realm of influence.

To say the same for Bucharest seems far-fetched (you said this in your post about what the RR encompassed).

I've had the privilege of serving at the altar for Bishop John Michael Botean on several occasions, and in the Romanian Greek Catholic Church, at any rate, the recension is closer to that used by the Melkites, and the rubrics follow Greek useage (e.g., entrances process around the nave, not merely around the solea). I would say that the Romanians cannot be classified either as Greek or Slavic, but a combination of the two.

Mehmet II the Conqueror of Constantinople, was invading Wallachia not merely because Vlad refused to pay tribute, but because, when the Sultan's ambassadors refused to remove their turbans in his presence, Vlad had the headgear nailed to their heads. This got Mehmet ticked off. However, on his approach to Vlad's fortress, he began encountering those impaled along the route. After a while, he turned back, commenting (perhaps tongue in cheek), that it would be a pity to make war on such a clever fellow.

"when the Sultan's ambassadors refused to remove their turbans in his presence, Vlad had the headgear nailed to their heads."

This episode is depicted very graphically in the movie. That's gotta hurt!

I believe I got a few details mixed up with a book I was reading on Vlad. Thanks. I couldn't watch it a second time since to get some of the storyline straight since my wife and son came home later that day and they don't like spooky movies. So, I have to watch them by myself.

Sorry about getting off the topic.

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Bob et al:

If I could ask for one simple clarification. Please do not use the term "BC" (which I assume means "Byzantine Catholic") as if it were synonymous with the Slavic Churches. There are some here who are Byzantine but not Slavic. I, for example, represent the Arabic tradition of the Melkites.

Thank you!

Edward, deacon and sinner (and alleged moderator of this forum).

Like the bull who was called an ox, you're grateful for the compliment, but would rather have what is rightfully yours.

Bob, I did not specifically mention Bucharest in my post. The areas annexed to the Austrian Empire would have be roughly 2/3 of the current geographical area of Romania, working from the north. Bucharest, being near the southern border, would have been on the edges of those areas that encompass the Ruthenian recension. I am neither an historian nor a scholar but my guess is that anything below the line running from Craiova through Brasov to Bacau would be considered on the fringes.

It should be noted that liturgical family designations are not guarantees of exactness in liturgical celebration. There have always been national and local customs. I have no doubt that the farther south one goes the more Greek influence there is on the style of liturgical celebration (speaking comparatively, of course, since the Ruthenian recension is oftentimes more Greeky than the Russian). This only makes sense since the further east one goes in Ukraine the more �Russiny� the liturgical style becomes (taking into account, of course, the forced Russinization).

Stuart may be correct that Romanians should not be classified as either Greek or Slav (liturgically). I think that my Romanian friends would be insulted by either accusation! Stuart�s comment that the Romanian liturgical style is more akin to the Melkite Byzantine Catholics than it is to Greeks or Slavs is most interesting. The documents I have seen and the people I have discussed it with have always indicated that they were part of the Ruthenian recension, especially those dioceses furthest to the north. This does not mean, of course, that they have always been considered part of the Ruthenian recension for purposes being part of a liturgical family.

Fr. Deacon Ed,

I am using the term BC (Byzantine Catholic) just as it is used on this forum. When you log into https://www.byzcath.org/ you get news about the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ruthenians are the only ones (Greek Catholics if you will) who use that term on a stand alone basis. Melkites, Ukrainian, Romanians, etc., all seem to use that + BC, not BC alone.

Under Eparchies, Seminary & Monasteries are only listed Ruthenian entities until you get to Other Byzantine Catholics then what comes up? first Ruthenian then other BCs.

You say there are other Byzantines that are not Slavic, of course! The Ukrainians are not called BCs around here generally, they are called Ukrainain Catholics, but they are certainly Slavs!

If the forum administrator decides I will stop using BC to refer to the Ruthenian Catholic Church but then so should byzcath.org and the BC Seminary, the BC Chancery, most BC parishes(probably all!), etc. Oh and that BCW (Byzantine Catholic World) stop them too! :p

I mean no offense by this I hope you understand. Having ben a BC (Ruthenian) and knowing how 'our people' talk and living in Pittsburgh I think this is clear. Especially it should be so if you log into www.byzcath.org and see what all the hooplah is about...it is about Ruthenians.

So, perhaps you should talk to the administrator, I will submit to his decision, I am obedient.

I am getting the idea I am misunderstood more often that not

Bob

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Dear Administrator, (and I mean that dear, with respect) I know you did not mention Bucharest and I am not accusing you of that (in fact I am accusing you of nothing). But you did say So Orthodox + Romanian = Bucharest Patriarchate. That is my point, no more no less. Your inclusion of Orthodox and Romanian must include Bucharest...you remember those Venn diagrams from Logic class ?

Wishing you well, I remain, Bob

(corrected typoes, I hate those!)

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

In the old country (ie, Bucharest), I did not see full nave processions, but rather the procession before the solea, as is done in the Greek and Slav churches. Perhaps the other usage is particular to the Romanian Greek-Catholics (together with the Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics of Antioch)?

In all, the Romanian use that I saw in Bucharest was a very interesting mix of (1) generally a Slav typikon, (2) certain Greek elements (as are present throughout the Balkan Orthodox) and (3) Romanian adaptation (which occurs mostly because the language of the liturgy is different). As a former Melkite, it didn't really strike me as very "Melkite" -- it struck me as something that was a Greco-Slav mix with Romanian elements transposed over. The liturgy, nevertheless, works very well in Romanian.

Brendan

Why? Constantinople exercised jurisdiction over the Romanian Orthodox until they granted them autocephalocy in 1885. I believe it was the equivalent of a metropolitan archbishop heading the Romanian Orthodox Church until it was raised to a patriarchate in 1925. I am not sure that it is the most ancient see in Romania.

Can you be specific about the point you are making? Are you stating that there is no way Romania could be considered to be part of the Ruthenian recension? Are you stating that there is no possible way that the northern parts of Romania could be considered part of the Ruthenian recension even if the southern and eastern areas really didn�t qualify?

Since the union with Rome of some of the Romanian Orthodox was in 1700 (125 years before a patriarchate) it could be argued that during that time the Romanian Byzantine Catholics become more influenced by the Ruthenian traditions but I don�t think that would hold much weight. When I think of all these local Churches being part of the Ruthenian recension I merely see some focal point for liturgy, even if it is merely the source of the liturgical books.

My initial point was about including Romania in the Ruthenian Recension group, I am not disputing it just impressed that I had not heard that before.

Bucharest is likely not the most ancient see, but I am no authority on that. Of course what makes up modern Romania has not alwasy been so...especially Transylvania and Bukovina.


Not so much stating as wondering out loud.



Exactly where I am coming from!


Which is why I am impressed that the Romanians use the Ruthenian Recension -- having been under Greek (Constantinopolitan) jurisdiction for so long.

Bob

My guess is that it is merely practical. Were Slavonic language books ever printed at Constantinople? Probably not. And after 1453 even most of the Greek editions of the liturgical books were printed in Italy (which accounts for the Hungarian Ruthenian liturgical books being slightly different than the Slavic Ruthenian books). But then I am not a scholar and all this is just a guess.

From a Romanian history page:


(adapted from previous posts on this thread)

Romanians are not Slavs but used Slavonic books. Some wish to say that it was immediately subject to Constantinople. Even if this is so, would not the books have been the ones available in Slavonic. The Slavonic liturgical books that were available were from Kiev or Moscow for the greater part.

Hence, aren't we all surprised that the Romanians aren't using the Russian Recension?

djs

The term �Byzantine Catholic� encompasses all Byzantine Christians in communion with the Church of Rome. In America it has generally been associated with the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church. There was an agreement back in the 1950�s for all Byzantine Catholics to use it but the Ukrainians, Romanians and Melkites preferred to use ethnic titles or the older term �Greek Catholic� and never adopted it while the Byzantine-Ruthenians did. The fact that most other Byzantine Catholics do not generally use the term they are always free to do so.

I recommend that, at least once in each conversation, participants provide a more specific definition of terms. This is considered normal. When one talks about Americans in general one need not differentiate between northerners and southerners. When one speaks about people in specific places one generally defines whether they are Northerners, freedom loving Southerners, Pennsylvanians or Californians.

Bob, you might consider that sometimes you appear as if you want to be misunderstood! Does the fact that the OCA does not contain complete information about other Orthodox parishes mean that the OCA does not consider them to be Orthodox?