Alteration in worship?

[UnityofTrinity]

Have Eastern Catholics or Orthodox ever gone through changes in the divine liturgy. Like having different postures, different prayers, as is the Roman Church after Vatican II.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Byzantine tradition went through a great number of changes in the early part of its history. Things have since stabilized and tended to change rather slowly. The exception would be the famous Nikonian reforms, which attempted to reconcile Russian-Byzantine liturgical practice with earlier Greek-Byzantine liturgical practice. Such reforms led to the formation of the “Old Believers.”

More recently the Byzantine Catholic Ruthenians in the U.S., aka the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburg, underwent some rather drastic changes to their liturgical practice. The changes have included a completely new translation that attempts to use inclusive language, new/revised music that attempts to better express the Carpatho-Russyn chant tradition, and a heavily abbreviated Divine Liturgy. Some have received the changes happily and have been enriched by them, but the majority of Ruthenians I’ve talked to do not think highly of the changes at all. In my area many Ruthenians have left the Ruthenian Church for Roman Catholicism, Ukrainian or Melkite Greek/Byzantine Catholicism, or Orthodoxy.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

The exception would be the famous Nikonian reforms, which attempted to reconcile Russian-Byzantine liturgical practice with earlier Greek-Byzantine liturgical practice. Such reforms led to the formation of the “Old Believers.”

One can easily compare both the Nikonian Reforms and the NO changes, including that the Old Believers are similar to the SSPX and other “rad trads” if you will.
And yes, MANY Ruthenians truly dislike the reformed Liturgy, and hope that Met. Skurla will fix it…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve often thought of the Old Believers as the Orthodox equivalent of the SSPX. The difference now, however, is that I believe the Old Believers are now in full communion with the rest of Russian Orthodoxy (I could be wrong). The SSPX are still on questionable grounds, tending more and more toward schism I believe.

As to whether or not Met. Skurla will undo or reform the Ruthenian reformations (or rather deformations) in the U.S., any thought on it is purely conjecture. My opinion, based on discussions I’ve had with people who know the Metropolitan, is that it is highly unlikely that he will challenge the status quo. I’ve been told that while he is a good man, he is not really one to rock the boat. But all things are possible with God.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I’ve often thought of the Old Believers as the Orthodox equivalent of the SSPX. The difference now, however, is that I believe the Old Believers are now in full communion with the rest of Russian Orthodoxy (I could be wrong). The SSPX are still on questionable grounds, tending more and more toward schism I believe.

As to whether or not Met. Skurla will undo or reform the Ruthenian reformations (or rather deformations) in the U.S., any thought on it is purely conjecture. My opinion, based on discussions I’ve had with people who know the Metropolitan, is that it is highly unlikely that he will challenge the status quo. I’ve been told that while he is a good man, he is not really one to rock the boat. But all things are possible with God.

The Old believers are not in communion with the ROC.

For example, they have their own metropolitan of Moscow, such as Korniliy.

 

[iohanne]

Many Old Believers have been reconciled with Orthodoxy and allowed to retain their own “use” or “rite” - to use Latin ecclesial terms - and that has been sufficient for them. However, many Old Believers have deemed this kind of accomodation to be insufficient and so they condemn the rest of Russian Orthodoxy for accepting the changes.

I don’t think it’s exactly a parallel because the Old Believers schismed over such ridiculous things like a word-change in translation or the position of one’s fingers when making the sign of the cross. The SSPX are tending towards schism over a worldview that has important implications and that is at variance with that of Rome. The SSPX don’t care whether I cross myself with the full open hand or with three fingers or with two. They may kind of be similar but they’re at totally different levels of conservatism.

 

[twf]

I’ve often thought of the Old Believers as the Orthodox equivalent of the SSPX. The difference now, however, is that I believe the Old Believers are now in full communion with the rest of Russian Orthodoxy (I could be wrong). The SSPX are still on questionable grounds, tending more and more toward schism I believe.

As to whether or not Met. Skurla will undo or reform the Ruthenian reformations (or rather deformations) in the U.S., any thought on it is purely conjecture. My opinion, based on discussions I’ve had with people who know the Metropolitan, is that it is highly unlikely that he will challenge the status quo. I’ve been told that while he is a good man, he is not really one to rock the boat. But all things are possible with God.

In which case the Old Believers would be more akin to the FSSP - retain the former liturgy, practices, traditions, and worldview, but in full communion with the mother church.

 

[Exsilivm]

The analogy between SSPX and Old Believers is valid with respect to the overall feeling - that is, that liturgy reflects truth, truth does not change, therefore changes to liturgy should not occur frequently, and when they occur, should be minor.

It is not a valid comparison in terms of scale. The changes of Nikon’s reforms were minor compared with the changes after V2.

A closer analogy in that regard, as well as the motivation for the changes and the explicit anti modernist stances of the dissidents would be with the Old Calendarists.

 

[Vico]

Have Eastern Catholics or Orthodox ever gone through changes in the divine liturgy. Like having different postures, different prayers, as is the Roman Church after Vatican II.

There was a request made to Rome (era 1940) to provide recensions to the eastern liturgies. These were published, with different rubrics and languages for the various Oriental Churches. The Ukrainian-Ruthenian recension is distinct from the Russian-Serbian-Bulgarian. The Ukrainian-Ruthenian removes latinizations that were added from the time of Metropolitan Isidore (Council of Florence). The full recension has not yet been implemented. The following recensions were published:

I.-Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Bizantino
V51 A) In Lingua Greca
B) In Lingua Slava Ecclesiastica
V52 1. Recensio Vulgata (Pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis)
V53 2. Recensio Ruthena (Pro Ucrainis Et Ruthenis)
V53 3. Pro Utraque Recensione
V54 C) In Lingua Rumena
V55 Ii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Copto
V56 Iii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Etiopico
V57 Iv. Edizione Romana Dei Rituali Etiopici
V58 V. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Siro-Orientale O Caldeo
V59 Varia
V60 Vi. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali In Lingua Russa
V61 Vii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Melkita

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/varie.html

Also:

patronagechurch.com/HTML/prayers__liturgy.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Many Old Believers have been reconciled with Orthodoxy and allowed to retain their own “use” or “rite” - to use Latin ecclesial terms - and that has been sufficient for them. However, many Old Believers have deemed this kind of accomodation to be insufficient and so they condemn the rest of Russian Orthodoxy for accepting the changes.

I don’t think it’s exactly a parallel because the Old Believers schismed over such ridiculous things like a word-change in translation or the position of one’s fingers when making the sign of the cross. The SSPX are tending towards schism over a worldview that has important implications and that is at variance with that of Rome. The SSPX don’t care whether I cross myself with the full open hand or with three fingers or with two. They may kind of be similar but they’re at totally different levels of conservatism.

The analogy between SSPX and Old Believers is valid with respect to the overall feeling - that is, that liturgy reflects truth, truth does not change, therefore changes to liturgy should not occur frequently, and when they occur, should be minor.

It is not a valid comparison in terms of scale. The changes of Nikon’s reforms were minor compared with the changes after V2.

A closer analogy in that regard, as well as the motivation for the changes and the explicit anti modernist stances of the dissidents would be with the Old Calendarists.

I agree with the general attitude of these two posts. The Old Believers are maybe not a very good comparison for the anti-Vatican II crowd.