www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West External Reverence vs. sacrilege

[The Prosphora are cut into long strips like french fries, which the priest takes from the Diskos (usually held by a deacon), dips into the chalice (usually held by the priest), and places in the mouth of the recipient. It works well enough, and there are no spoons to steal.]

Do they consecrate the entire loaf, or just the Lamb? I have known Ukrainian
Catholic Priests to place all of the "commemorative" particles in the
Poterion because they "laid" against the Lamb, and were, therefore
consecrated.

Do they consecrate the entire loaf, or just the Lamb? I have known Ukrainian
Catholic Priests to place all of the "commemorative" particles in the
Poterion because they "laid" against the Lamb, and were, therefore
consecrated.[/QB][/QUOTE]

In the Liturgies I have served for Melkite priests and bishops, the Proskimede is conducted in precisely the same way as it is in Slavic and Greek recensions, save that instead of being broken into triangular particles, the Prosphora is cut up into strips (particles are still used for the commemorations) and placed on the Diskos. Most of the small partiicles are either reserved or distributed to the clergy. The gifts, including the strips, are transferred to the Holy Table at the Great Entrance. So the Bread as well as the Wine are consecrated by virtue of being on the altar throughout the anaphora.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lemko Rusyn:
[QB]

Your Beatitude,
>>>Last time I checked, Zagorsk was in Russia and has nothing to do with the Greek Catholic Church.<<<

Forgive me, a sinner. I know perfectly well that it is Zamosc. The spirit is willing, but the fingers are weak.

>>>Though we might consider it consigned to the ash heap of history, since it is now called Sergiev Posad. Anyway, there's a beautiful monastery (Holy Trinity - St. Sergius Lavra) there...<<<

That would be a great loss to us all.

>>>But back to the Synod of Zamosc (Zamost'), it is unfairly demonized as the contributing factor to the liturgical latinization of our Church, but actually it halted a lot of the most extreme latinization that was becoming commonplace especially in the Basilian monasteries, and codified what had become by that time fairly universal latinizations (omission of the sponge & teplota as relevant to this thread).<<<

What Zamosc did that was unforgiveable was elevate these deviations to norms. Fr. Serge Kelleher comments extensively on the effects of Zamosc on the liturgical life of the Ruthenian (Rusyn and Ukrainian) Churches in his translation of the Ordo Celebrationis. Check expecially the extremely enlightening end notes.

Well, hindsight is 20-20 but who is to say what would have happened had there been no Synod? If this synod actually codified a latinized but still relatively true to its origins form of the Divine Liturgy, implying that things were much worse in some places, we might even say that this synod helped preserve what may have become completely extinct. Who are we to say what the alternative result might have been?

Believe me, I'd much rather have a Liturgy served fully according to the 1891 L'viv Sluzhebnyk than the 1998 Passaic one. (God help me for saying that, but it's true.)

Dear Friends,

Stuart's (and Fr. Keleher's) great focus is on the integrity and consistency of the liturgical rites and traditions of the Particular Churches. He has developed a number of historical paradigms as means of verifying such integrity etc.

From this perspective, Zamoysk was certainly a failure as it went so far as to canonize certain Latinisms that had, by then, become the norm in the Greek Catholic Church.

I hope that Zamoysk would not influence any bishop today along these lines!

From Lemko's perspective, Zamoysk necessarily had to go beyond the liturgical issue and address the problem of maintaining the integrity of the Greek Catholic Church itself at that time.

The fact is, as Fr. Keleher also admits elsewhere, that Greek Catholics were prone to return to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox calendar today even celebrates liturgically the return of 3 million "Uniates" under their Metropolitan Joseph Siemashko (this month, I believe).

As Fr. Irenaeus Nazarko writes in his book on the Metropolitans of Kyiv, Zamoysk tried to put up a greater wall between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodoxy to stay this movement.

The sponge was an early casualty. The maintenance of the Supplicatsia and other western devotions were approved. Some other "extreme" Orthodox liturgical practices were likewise banned.

Also banned were other Latin practices, however. Greek CAtholics tended to move toward Roman Catholicism as well, and the devotions to the Sacred Heart, Monstrance et alia were popular among them.

They were also popular among Orthodox in the Kyivan Church where Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception were popular, together with the Rosary, the LIttle Office of the Virgin Mary, devotion to the sorrows of the MOther of God (Tale of the Five Prayers) and St Bonaventure's Psalter of Our Lady (translated by St Dmitri of Rostov!).

Zamoysk really canonized for the Greek CAtholic Church the spirituality of the then existing Orthodox Church of the Kyivan tradition, which was heavily Latinized starting with St Peter Mohyla himself whose Catechism was very Latin etc.

Being pressed in by both East AND West, it was natural for the Greek CAtholics and the Orthodox of the Kyivan Baroque tradition to see themselves as a hybrid of both.

From a cultural anthropological point of view, this can almost be seen as inevitable.

One reason why relations between Ukrainian CAtholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine are so good today is because the two share the same hybridized Rite and spirituality.

As an example, all my books on the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross etc. are Orthodox publications from western Ukraine!

Liturgical usage should ideally always be true to itself.

But there are other historical factors that, in their given contexts, can help shape and direct liturgical development in their own ways.

Now I feel as if I'm truly back as well!

Alex

Alex,

Can you please tell me which Orthodox Church keeps this liturgical celebration, I have asked Orthodox (and Greek Catholic) priests about this an no one seems to know.

Thanks!

Bob

Dear Bob,

Certainly the ROCOR observes it and I believe other Old Calendarist Traditional Orthodox groups do as well.

It is a "regular" on the St Herman of Alaska and St John of Kronstadt calendars.

The Russian Churches still observe a kind of anathema service against the Ukrainian Hetman, Ivan Mazeppa, for his alliance with the Lutheran King of Sweden, Charles XII against Peter the Great.

I have it in Old Slavonic in the Priest's Horologion published by Jordanville.

In it, Mazeppa is referred to as a type of Judas, but three times more despicable!

Mazeppa (and there was a play on Mazeppa that was popular in the U.S. in the West in the 19th century) was excommunicated and memorial services for him could therefore not be held in the Orthodox Church.

Ukrainian Orthodox then often asked Greek CAtholic priests to serve Panakhydas for the repose of his soul on September 21st, the night of his death.

Alex

"Zamoysk really canonized for the Greek CAtholic Church the spirituality of the then existing Orthodox Church of the Kyivan tradition, which was heavily Latinized starting with St Peter Mohyla himself whose Catechism was very Latin etc.

Being pressed in by both East AND West, it was natural for the Greek CAtholics and the Orthodox of the Kyivan Baroque tradition to see themselves as a hybrid of both.

From a cultural anthropological point of view, this can almost be seen as inevitable.

One reason why relations between Ukrainian CAtholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine are so good today is because the two share the same hybridized Rite and spirituality.

As an example, all my books on the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross etc. are Orthodox publications from western Ukraine!

Liturgical usage should ideally always be true to itself.

But there are other historical factors that, in their given contexts, can help shape and direct liturgical development in their own ways.

Now I feel as if I'm truly back as well!

Alex "

--------------------------------------------------
Dear Alex and Everyone else,

Based upon what you've posted above and what I think I've understood others to say in other places, I have a couple of questions.

Is there some way in which any or some or all of the Eastern Catholic Churches can be understood to be a tertium quid?

If so, is there some way in which one, any, or all of them could remain who they are after the end of the separation among the Churches. Could they remain sui juris Churches in union with the Pope and enter into communion with other Orthodox Churches as separate churches?

If so, could they maintain those characteristics, even some "Latinisms" that they have accepted or developed as a result of their unique history and circumstances?

Here's why I'm asking.

I read the principal address to the Orientale Lumen Conference by the Hierarch of the Carpathian Russian Greek Catholic Orthodox Church ( I hope I got that right.) He used those words when he talked about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I've read postings by persons who are Byzantine Catholics who claim that that is exactly who they and what their Chruch is. If I understood what they said, they said that they and their Church would continue to be just that after the end of the separation between the Churches.

Other posters seem to suggest that Eastern Catholic Churches would become part of the Orthodox Church to which they belonged at the time of the separation.

Still others point out that the current organizational structure of the Orthodox Churches do not reflect their organizational structure at the time of the entry into communion of the Eastern Catholics with the Pope.

There have been developments on both sides, it appears.

There appear to be multiple opinions among Eastern Catholics about what is liturgically or theologically correct for the Eastern Churches. There are ideas about what is right now and what should or might happen when union happens.

That leads to my final question.

Is there a teaching or are there teachings among the Eastern Catholic Churches about these matters?

Thanks for hearing me out and for any information and resources that you might share with me.

Steve

[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

In my parish we do it this way only on Sundays. For Divine Liturgies on weekdays or at Presantified, we use the spoon. I have no experience of any other Melkite parishes, so cannot say what others do.

Vicki (Melkite)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VWilliams:
[QB]>>>In my parish we do it this way only on Sundays. For Divine Liturgies on weekdays or at Presantified, we use the spoon. I have no experience of any other Melkite parishes, so cannot say what others do.

Vicki (Melkite)<<<

I have served at liturgies celebrated by Bishop John Elya, Bishop Nicholas, and His Beatitude Patriarch Gregory III. All of them used intinction. Father Joseph, as you might have come to recognize, is sui generis, and may God grant him many years.

Dear Steve,

As always, you just leave me "in awe" by your points and questions!

Following the Unia of Brest-Litovk in 1596, there were a number of times that Greek Catholics returned to Orthodoxy, and also where Orthodox became Greek Catholic. Fr. Meletius Solovey and Fr. Irenaeus Nazarko comment on this in their books on the Divine Liturgy and the Metropolitans of Kyiv respectively.

The Orthodox Church in particular, and the whole case of St Alexis Tovt also bears this out, has proven quite tolerant of Latin devotions that its new converts might bring along with them as spiritual/cultural "baggage."

Orthodox converts to union with Rome tended to soon become Latinized, on the other hand.

The Latinizations themselves do not impact on the fact that Ukrainian Catholics are descendants, even as a sui generis Church (forgive me for using this term, Orthoman!) from the Orthodox Church of Kyiv and would, upon reunion, properly belong to it.

As a matter of fact, in Western Ukraine it is the Orthodox Church there that beats out the Ukie Cath'lics "hands down" in promoting the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary! They also have a "Moleben" which is like the Latinized Moleben of the Ukrainian Catholics, except it is even more Latinized . . .

They have the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament using a Monstrance. Oh, you'd feel right at home with our Ukrainian Orthodox across the pond, Friend!

Again, Latinization and the Kyivan Baroque affected the Orthodox as much as the Eastern Catholics, in Ukraine and in Russia, culturally and theologically.

They don't impact whatsoever on the issue of Church and the fact that both Eastern CAtholics and Orthodox belong to their same respective ecclesial families.

So that means, I guess, that we can have our (Latin) cake and eat it too!

Alex

Hi Mike:

W/r/t your observation on some ladies' immodest garb, I've got to relate a tale of my own:

In my old neighborhood, there was an RC church with an OUTDOOR prayer garden dedicated to the unborn. The garden was secluded and consisted of some wildflowers, benches, and a statue of the Virgin. I used to pass by the church at the end of my evening run and would pop by the garden, as it was near my home, and say a prayer. I admit that I even felt odd being OUTSIDE, on church grounds, in running shorts. My mom and dad were quite formal about church - they sent us kids back several times to change until we met with their approval. No jeans, no tee shirts, and no short dresses or skirts were tolerated.

One time when I had popped by the garden, an eldery lady came by and saw me and said the church was open for adoration of the Sacrament. I said, "I can't go INSIDE dressed like this!" She said, "I see your parents raised you right. It'll be open for two more hours. Take a shower, get dressed, and come on back then when you feel decent!" And so I did.

And the babas shall lead...:-)

Annie