www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Liturgical changes in the Paschal season

Christ is risen!

Chtec:

Some of this we know for fact. For example, the changes which were legislated at the Synod of Zamosc were certainly considered "latinizations" and were removed from the Ruthenian books.

In other cases (such as this particular subject, the peculiarities of Paschal celebration), it would be more important to find out when the deviations came into being. It is interesting to note that none of the so-called "ruthenian" practices vis-a-vis the Paschal season are outlined in either Mikita or Dolnitsky. That's not a complete answer, because neither of those books are really complete in their commentary on the Ruthenian usage, but their silence is at least interesting.

I'll do some more checking out.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsbugh, PA

Dear Professor Thompson,

Thank you for you post. Please do not attempt to turn this thread into a �I hate Father Petras post�. Others have already made such attempts and they have fallen flat. I have only the highest respect for Father Petras. I have a collection of almost everything he has published and have learned much from his writings. I can respect him and admire his work while also finding his arguments for reform very unconvincing. I was unaware, however, that he or anyone else has published complete, accurate English language translations of all our official liturgical books from Rome. Where can I obtain copies of all of these texts? It seems to me that the best way to convince people like myself that all these liturgical reforms (from changed rubrics to dropped litanies to Paschal customs) are either in line with our official liturgical books published by Rome or are a return to our pre-Zamosc liturgical traditions is to publish the texts for all to see so that the texts can speak for themselves. I am looking forward to purchasing these texts.

Admin

Perhaps a specific example along with some comments and questions will help convey the position from which I believe we must approach liturgical renewal and possible reformation.


Question: What is the most extreme example of �creeping paschalism�?

Answer: The signing of the Paschal Antiphons (Psalms 65 �Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth�.�and 66 �Be gracious to us, O God, and bless us�.�) on all Sundays of the year.


In his study �The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Kievan Metropolitan Province during the Period of Union with Rome (1596-1839)� by Laurence Daniel Huculak, OSBM (now Bishop of Edmonton), we find noted on page 217: �During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Ps. 65 and 66 were assigned only to Easter Sunday and its festive period, which in the Zoxovs�kyj tradition includes only the first two Sundays after Easter. Further study of the sources from the nineteenth century should give the origin of their regular use on Sundays in present practice�.

Here we have perhaps the most egregious example of �creeping paschalism�. Not only were the Paschal Antiphons extended throughout the 40 days from Pascha until Ascension but to all of the Sundays of the year (replacing the pre-Zamosc custom of singing Psalms 91 and 92, which most would recognize as the �Weekday Antiphons�).

There are numerous questions that immediately come to mind. I have not seen discussed anywhere. I offer just a few for discussion:

Q1: Is there a pressing need to address �creeping paschalism� in the Ruthenian Church?

Q2: If there is a need to address �creeping paschalism� in the Ruthenian Church, is the need so dire that it must be addressed unilaterally by the Ruthenian Metropolitan Province in America and not in conjunction with all the Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) which make up the Ruthenian Recension?

Q3: If the answer to Q2 is �yes�, that why is it necessary to address the �creeping paschalism� of liturgical customs such as singing the Paschal Troparion (�Christ is Risen�.�) instead of �May our lips be filled with your praise, O Lord�.� (and etc.) during the 40 days and not to first address the most egregious example of �creeping paschalism� by restoring the original custom of using Psalms 91 and 92 for the First and Second Antiphons on Sundays?

There are many more questions but let�s start with these.

Christ is Risen!

I thank the Admin for his frank statements, made with much candor. I myself agree with and share his concern over the liturgical changes and reforms.

Much excellent research and hard-fought internal battles went into the development and promulgation of the 1941 Ordo Celebrationis. One of the primary areas of focus for Metropolitan Sheptytsky and his team was the reestablishment of pre-Zamosc liturgical forms, which was admirably accomplished by the Ordo. To somehow turn away from that impetus and work to me is most disturbing.

Back to the Antiphons, while indeed Bishop Lawrence indeed mentions the use of the Antiphons during only a brief period, he also admits that there is much variation on this practice.

I would not necessarily consider the common use of the Sunday Antiphons year round as a sign of "creeping paschalism". Even within the "Ruthenian recension" there is documentation from several authors that the Greek usage of the three antiphons, and not the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes, was commonly used on all Sundays. Some of these service books were in use pre-Zamosc.

Perhaps at least part of the issue with the antiphons is the local predominance of the Greek vs. Russian typicon when the sluzhebniki themselves were compiled and edited.

But certainly in some places using various different sluzhebniki, the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes were also used commonly on Sundays. The Old Rite (pre-Nikonian) service books in use, namely the Erie text still use this form. The so-called "Philothean diataxis" of the 14th century which influenced many service books of the Kyivan and Ruthenian sluzhebniki, stipulated the Beatitudes. In the more recent (1988) Ukrainian altar Liturgikon, it contains both the Typical Psalms (listing them first) and then the Sunday/weekday antiphons.

Dolnytsky in his Typikon commonly generally instructs the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes to be used on most Sundays throughout the year, using festal or Resurrectional antiphons appropriately on the feasts and Sundays of post-festive periods. Specifically for after Pascha, he indicates that on Thomas Sunday the order returns to the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes.

Diak,

Thanks for your post. There is no disagreement that the three antiphons were used on Sundays and not the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes. The �creeping paschalism� I am referring to here is not the use of the antiphons on Sundays but the replacement of the verses from Psalms 91 and 92 (the original Sunday antiphons) with those from Psalms 65 and 66 on most Sundays of the liturgical year. [The nearby Antiochian Orthodox parish, for example, takes the Antiphons on Sundays throughout the year with verses from Psalm 91 and 92.] This change in Psalms among the Ruthenians appears to have begun only in the nineteenth century. It seems to me that if addressing �creeping paschalism� is something that must be mandated then the first to be addressed should be a restoration of the original Sunday Antiphons (Psalms 91 & 92) and limiting the Paschal Antiphons (Psalms 65 and 66) to Pascha Day and the traditional one or two succeeding Sundays. It is specifically this issue for which I am asking feedback.

The larger point I am making here is that if we are not renewing the Divine Liturgy on the basis of the official liturgical books (and we are not) then there is no precedent to appeal to the official liturgical books for anything, let alone paschal liturgical customs. Professor Thompson�s post supports my point perfectly. The official liturgical books like the Apostol should be our standard. But since those seeking to revise our Ruthenian Recension are not using the official liturgical books as a standard for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (the big things) they cannot now appeal to it support their position regarding paschal liturgical customs (the little things).

I suppose I could sum it up in question 4:

Q4: If we have not used the official liturgical books as our standard for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and are very willing to create a �Third Way� with a �Revised Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom�, on what basis do we have a right to appeal to any of our official liturgical books for anything?

By the way, I have not given any position on the actual paschal customs themselves. That is not what I am discussing.

Admin

Friends,

We are talking about singing "Christ is risen" three less times than we are used to doing. I just don't see it as that big of deal especially when our books call for just that. In the end, as in all things liturgical, each pastor will do what he wants and I don't think the bishops are going to be upset if some keep singing "Christ is risen" the three extra times.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance, you are right on. Each pastor is his own interpreter of the Typikon.

Dear Admin, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the continued use of Psalms 65 and 66 outside of Paschaltime is indeed anomalous and of recent (post-Zamosc) insertion. Our local Antiochian parish also sings the antiphons with Psalms 91 and 92.

Perhaps part of the problem also lies partly in ambiguous or nonexistent rubrical clarifications in the service books. For example, the Divine Liturgy booklet for Paschal time published for the Eparchy of Parma (1979) gives no instruction or clarification that the Third Antiphon with verses of Psalm 67 is only to be taken Bright Week. It only says "in some parishes the following is taken". So for parishes that take the Third Antiphon, they may continue to do this for the entire 40 days.

Actually, one can still appeal to the Roman books. In the translation of the Liturgy we have used as the standard the model editions of the Ruthenian Recension as promulgated by Rome from 1941-1973. Variances from these books were approved by the same authority which issued them. It may be interesting to note that the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches also permitted some variances to Bishop Daniel Ivancho in 1953, which have become a moot point since. The recitation of some of the presbyteral prayers was permitted in the Roman approval, but it has previously been noted that there is no rubric for silence for these prayers.

I think the Paschal practices as promulgated would probably follow your own guidelines.

Therefore, for the Paschal practices, the Roman books were followed. May I now express my personal opinion??? Personally, I don�t see any problem with singing the Paschal Troparion instead of , �Blessed is he who comes... � and �May our mouth be filled ...,� but this is not general Byzantine practice - Catholic or Orthodox, and that is our norm. I see a value in restricting some practices to only Bright Week, to emphasize the unique joy of the Resurrection in contrast to the rest of the year. In the manuscript I edited for my doctorate, �Christ is risen .. � was, in fact, sung only during Bright Week (but I don�t recommend that!)

Some of the practices are quite recent. I believe I witnessed the introduction of the practice of opening the doors for the whole 40 days. Some priests told me they were going to start doing it �because people didn�t come to church during Bright Week� and wanted to retain the �flavor� of this custom.

It�s interesting how argumentation on this thread so often ends up on antiphons. The singing of the Paschal Antiphons 1 and 2 throughout the 40 days was a decision that had to be made, since the Ruthenians do not follow the practice of most recensions in returning to the Typical Psalms and Beatitutes on Thomas Sunday.

This practice makes liturgical sense (though I am not sure all would accept this as a reason) since it seems that the following weeks of the Paschal season: Thomas, Sunday, Myrrh-bearers, Paralytic Man, the Mid-Pentecost interruption, Samaritan Woman and man Born Blind, seem to follow the rule that the weeks following these Sundays (feast) are post-festive periods of that Sunday (feast).

Father David

Fr. David,

Thank you for the explanation. I personally find the need to steamroll all these post-festive seasons/weeks as one mega-Bright Week akin to - and this is only my opionion - the need of some to preempt all our services with only the "Mass." There is not permitted a sense of hierarchy in order. It always seems so much easier for some to simply decide on one thing, and one thing only, to concentrate on and run with it to its conclusion. Is this from the fear of trying to juggle two things at once? Yet, a simple reference to our liturgical books depict a gradual tapering off of any feast in the post-festive period. I ofte wonder how many ask their pastors to actually celebrate leave-taking, where one can celebrate all over again the festive liturgies and hymns?

Joe

Unless I am VERY much mistaken, the Ruthenian Recension Apostol (Epistle-book) prescribes using the Typical Psalms (and therefore the Beatitudes) on Sunday of Saint Thomas and thereafter - cf the abridged volume published in 1944 and the complete volume published in 1955, both in Rome.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

By the way, we have a hill in the back of our house that is always difficult to mow. I planted some Creeping Paschalism last year, and it's really covering the ground well!

Bless, Father Thomas!

Christos Voskrese!

....and welcome back!

In the Risen Christ,
Alice

Fr. David,

Thank you for your post. It seems to me that the rubrics and texts of the proposed revisions to the Divine Liturgy (some of which are already enforce in some of our eparchies) are at great variance with those given in the official Roman editions. If there was no need to adhere to the rubrics common to our Ruthenian Recension regarding the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (a major thing) then I fail to see how anyone can appeal to the official books to support their position on anything.

If, as Incognitus suggests, there is a rubric in the Apostol that we are to return to the Typical Psalms on Thomas Sunday and such a rubric was not also required, then we are doing nothing less than picking and choosing which elements of our recension we wish to retain.

Admin

Father Thomas,

Be careful with that creeping paschalism! If you don�t keep it pruned it will eventually choke the pussy willows. :p

Admin

Response to the Administrator's post of April 27:

I think a small clarification is needed because my point was misunderstood.

Question: do we grant the Roman See the right to prescribe in liturgical matters?

Your answer would seem to imply that the Roman books have authority only because they reflect accurately the Byzantine Liturgy. Therefore, they themselves cannot allow variations on that Liturgy.

In any case, the Ruthenian Metropolia here has not rejected the Roman books, but has treated them as a model, to which certain modifications might be made, hence respect the authority of the Roman books, hence can appeal to the books in other cases.

One can, therefore, argue about the desirability of the changes made, but not about the process,unless one holds that the legislator cannot legislate in regard to his own laws.

Fr. Dave