Byzantine Catholic Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tous_Logous
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tous_Logous

Guest
I’m hoping this is the correct forum to ask this.

I am a Latin-Rite Catholic who may begin to attend a Byzantine Catholic parish in the next few months or so. As such I’ve been trying to learn as much as I can about the Byzantine Rite, the different liturgies, etc. I’m also a reader of church history, and I’m wondering what reading material (whether it’s books or websites) would be “safe” for me to read about the history of the Byzantine Church and the Empire.

I found that at least, the bookstores around where I live do not have a good selection with regards to anything related to the Byzantine Empire. I managed to pick up a hefty one-volume book called “A History of Byzantine State and Society” by Warren Treadgold. I didn’t know anything about this book before I bought it, but apparently has mixed reviews about the material it presents (apparently the author is “slamming” other historians and their work; I am all too familiar with this attitude, having to endured it throughout my academic, college reading).

Also, I’m finding it somewhat difficult to find good reading material about the Eastern Catholic Churches-specifically the Byzantine Catholic churches. Keep in mind, I am teaching my mother all about this as well. She seems excited about the things I give her to read about the E.C.C’s but at the same time asks me questions which I haven’t had time to research or read about. Currently we are going through Byzantine Leaflet Series (see here: byzantineseminarypress.com/byzantine-leaflet-series/ ) but I’m not sure what other introductory material is out there. I also purchased a book called “The Eastern Catholic Churches: An Introduction to Their Worship and Spirituality” by Joan L. Roccasalvo.

Also, I’ve been recently taking an interest in the Church Fathers. I’ve read “The Confessions” by St. Augustine but that’s about all I’m familiar with. Currently I have works also written by St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Athanasius, Fulmentius, St. Ephrem the Syrian, and St. Cassian. Which of these authors would be good for me to “continue on my way?” I’m currently struggling with some things in the Church (not so much the teachings which I agree with, but odd doubting questions) and I’ve heard St. Ephrem the Syrian would be a good place to start for those who may be going through a scrupulosity phase.

I apologize if I have any of my “Eastern” terminology incorrect. I find all the different ways of trying to explain E.C.C’s quite confusing.

P.S. Before I forget, what English Bible translation(s) do the E.C.C.'s use? I’m assuming that the English translation used in liturgy is taken directly from Old(?)/Church Slavonic or the other “native” languages (Ukrainian, Romanian, etc.). At least in the Roman Rite we use specific English translations at Mass (U.S. uses the NAB: RE, Canada I believe uses NRSV(?), etc.). For those E.C.C.'s that primarily use English in the liturgy (I believe the parish I am thinking about attending primarily uses English in the liturgy/chant) is there no set standard for which English Bible translation to use? I always found it odd, for example, that some Orthodox Churches (like OCA) use the King James Version of the Bible for their liturgy/chant/readings.
 
Tous_Logous said:
I always found it odd, for example, that some Orthodox Churches (like OCA) use the King James Version of the Bible for their liturgy/chant/readings.
Click to expand...
What’s odd about that? Some Byzantine Catholic parishes here in the States use OCA service books.
 
Seraphim73 said:
What’s odd about that? Some Byzantine Catholic parishes here in the States use OCA service books.
Click to expand...
I suppose it’s odd because it was translated by the Church of England, some of those members who also had Puritan leanings. I’m wondering how the OCA decided to choose the KJV as the primary English translation.

I guess this question could pertain to Eastern Catholic Churches who primarily use English in the liturgy as well.

To debate this isn’t the point of my thread. But it’s interesting to think about.
 
I think KJV is pretty common among Eastern churches that use English language, both Orthodox and Catholic. The Coptic Orthodox Church in the USA uses the NKJV, I think, which is just the KJV with some updated grammar, as far as I know.
 
Tous_Logous said:
I suppose it’s odd because it was translated by the Church of England, some of those members who also had Puritan leanings. I’m wondering how the OCA decided to choose the KJV as the primary English translation.

I guess this question could pertain to Eastern Catholic Churches who primarily use English in the liturgy as well.

To debate this isn’t the point of my thread. But it’s interesting to think about.
Click to expand...
There’s a bit of method behind the madness. The source from which the KJV was translated is closely related to the manuscripts which historically have been in use by Greek-speaking Christians and to the 1904 edition of the Scriptures published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its method for translating into English tends to be fairly accurate and free from attempts at dynamic translation. This makes it rather suitable for liturgical use in Orthodoxy.
 
Cavaradossi said:
There’s a bit of method behind the madness. The source from which the KJV was translated is closely related to the manuscripts which historically have been in use by Greek-speaking Christians and to the 1904 edition of the Scriptures published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its method for translating into English tends to be fairly accurate and free from attempts at dynamic translation. This makes it rather suitable for liturgical use in Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
I think the KJV is a better choice despite all the new English translations we have out there. The translation itself is free from more recent, questionable commentary. I will always prefer the 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible over the KJV despite the fact I like them both. The history and the world in which the KJV was written is quite fascinating, almost sad really.

I am wondering if English-speaking Orthodox/Eastern Catholics will ever publish the KJV with the Deuterocanonical books as a study Bible? I know the Orthodox Study Bible exists but as usual, have read mixed things about it.

That aside, I’m hoping a Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Catholic will reply to my questions so we can get back on topic, despite the fascinating (slightly) off-topic conversation.
 
Tous_Logous said:
I suppose it’s odd because it was translated by the Church of England, some of those members who also had Puritan leanings. I’m wondering how the OCA decided to choose the KJV as the primary English translation.

I guess this question could pertain to Eastern Catholic Churches who primarily use English in the liturgy as well.

To debate this isn’t the point of my thread. But it’s interesting to think about.
Click to expand...
Well it doesn’t really matter who does the translating if the translation is accurate. And honestly I doubt many parishes actually use the KJV. The NKJV is probably a lot more common.
 
Tous_Logous said:
… what English Bible translation(s) do the E.C.C.'s use?
…
I’m assuming that the English translation used in liturgy is taken directly from Old(?)/Church Slavonic or the other “native” languages (Ukrainian, Romanian, etc.).
…
For those E.C.C.'s that primarily use English in the liturgy (I believe the parish I am thinking about attending primarily uses English in the liturgy/chant) is there no set standard for which English Bible translation to use?

…
Click to expand...
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church (USA) uses the New English Bible, 1970, modified to some degree. The two books are the Gospel Book (Evangélion) and the Apostol (Apóstolos). For the Byzantine Catholic Church (USA) they are from the New American Bible (1970) with modifications by Msgr. William Levkulic (1924-2002) for the Epistles and Old Testament readings.

The official statement from the forward in the 2006 Divine Liturgy book is: This edition of the Divine Liturgy of Our Holy Father John Chrysostom has been prepared for the use of clergy in the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh by the Intereparchial Commission for Sacred Liturgy. The text has been translated from the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic of the Sluzhebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English translation of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission of Pittsburgh and Passaic (1965), which was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964.

This new translation seeks to be consistent in rendering biblical and technical terms, faithful to the vocabulary and thought of the text’s original context in the patristic period, but also accessible to a contemporary American congregation. In a few instances, textual criticism based on the witness of manuscripts as guided the translation.
In general, translations of biblical quotes and allusions have been guided by The New American Bible (1970-1991) and by The Psalms (The Grail, 1963). In practice, biblical allusions have usually required fresh translations both to capture the distinctive readings of the Septuagint Old Testament and to accommodate the new context of these biblical texts in the Liturgy. Verbal correspondences between the Liturgy and the Scriptures have been indicated by endnotes except where a word or phrase recurs frequently in the Bible or where allusion may be made to a number of different texts.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Well it doesn’t really matter who does the translating if the translation is accurate. And honestly I doubt many parishes actually use the KJV. The NKJV is probably a lot more common.
Click to expand...
I know that in the OCA Diocese of the South, former Abp Dmitri’s preference was that his parishes use the KJV.
 
Tous_Logous said:
I think the KJV is a better choice despite all the new English translations we have out there. The translation itself is free from more recent, questionable commentary. I will always prefer the 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible over the KJV despite the fact I like them both. The history and the world in which the KJV was written is quite fascinating, almost sad really.

I am wondering if English-speaking Orthodox/Eastern Catholics will ever publish the KJV with the Deuterocanonical books as a study Bible? I know the Orthodox Study Bible exists but as usual, have read mixed things about it.

That aside, I’m hoping a Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Catholic will reply to my questions so we can get back on topic, despite the fascinating (slightly) off-topic conversation.
Click to expand...
The Oxford Edition KJV is available with Deuterocanonicals included:

Look up
The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha
Introduction and Notes by Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett
 
Getting back to the topic of the OP, before we get too excited about talking about bible translations, I might recommend books written by Steven Runciman if you are interested in history (of both the Eastern Church and the state).
 
I believe* Rome and the Eastern Churches *is the best book money can buy with regard to the the various Eastern Churches and their relations to the Roman Catholic Church. It gives an account of all eastern/western schisms throughout history as well as the subsequent reunions that formed the various Byzantine/Greek Catholic Churches. Although the author is a Catholic priest, he remains very neutral and is an excellent writer and reads easily.

Although the author never claims this, after reading this book I realized that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has the true apostolic succession to the bishopric of Kiev, and the Melkite Catholic Church as the true apostolic succession to the bishopric of Antioch (of course the Maronite Catholics could also claim this). I’ve heard Orthodox apologist claim that Peter was in Antioch before Rome as a “proof” that Orthodoxy has Peter’s Keys to Kingdom, but even if this were true (which it is not since Peter was martyred in Rome), the Catholic Church would still have the Keys since the Melkites and Maronites have the unbroken succession of bishops to the see of Antioch.

amazon.com/Rome-Eastern-Churches-Aidan-Nichols/dp/1586172824
 
Maronites did not have a patriarch before late 7th century, John Maron. By contrast, Greek Patriarchs controlled Antioch in the wake of Chalcedon starting with Maximos (appointed by the emperor, but later deposed), who ruled there until 455. Orthodox Syrians had a Patriarch there since 469, but that Patriarch Peter the Fuller was deposed by the Chalcedonians, and then reinstated a few times in a period of shifting alliances. Either of these are about 200 years before the Maronites ever had a patriarch of their own, so how can they have an unbroken succession in Antioch when the patriarchs of the other major churches all predate them? I do not understand.
 
Efnouti_Nai_Nan said:
Maronites did not have a patriarch before late 7th century, John Maron. By contrast, Greek Patriarchs controlled Antioch in the wake of Chalcedon starting with Maximos (appointed by the emperor, but later deposed), who ruled there until 455. Orthodox Syrians had a Patriarch there since 469, but that Patriarch Peter the Fuller was deposed by the Chalcedonians, and then reinstated a few times in a period of shifting alliances. Either of these are about 200 years before the Maronites ever had a patriarch of their own, so how can they have an unbroken succession in Antioch when the patriarchs of the other major churches all predate them? I do not understand.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the Maronites preserved the original Antiochian rite while accepting the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon. Other Antiochian Christians who accepted the teachings of the council were forced to transfer to the Byzantine rite. Thus after the Council of Chalcedon, the only Antiochian rite Christians were the Maronites who were in communion with Rome and Constantinople, and the non-Chalcedonian Christians who were in schism with Rome and Constantinople. As I understand it, the Maronites considered the Greek Bishop of Antioch to be their Bishop even though he was Byzantine rite and they were Antiochean rite.

In 1662 the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch also entered communion with Rome and established the Syriac Catholic Church, thus creating a second body of Antiochen rite Catholics (the Maronites being the first). Thus is can be said that the Syriac Catholics can also claim apostolic succession to the See of Antioch. With the Melkites, Maronites, and Syriac Catholcs now all in communion with Rome and each other, it is hard to argue that the Catholic Church does not have the unbroken succession of bishops for the See of Antioch.
 
Hmm. That is a truly interesting reply, my friend. I have never heard before that the Maronites considered the Greeks to be their bishops, but I don’t really know a lot about them. There were other, local bishops who would have had control over the territory of Lebanon before they had their own bishop for their community, right? We know about bishops in Tyre and other places in the area going back to basically the earliest times of the church (before chalcedon). What evidence is there that the Greeks oversaw them?
 
I do have another set of questions regarding fasting and Great Lent. I’m currently reading “The Eastern Catholic Churches” by Joan L. Roccasalvo. I know during Great Lent there is a strong emphasis on penance and fasting but how does this work exactly? How many weeks of fasting are there? I know that in Joan’s book she describes that there is a “rigorous fast on the Monday before Ash Wednesday” (pg. 18), and that “In the Byzantine tradition, Five Sundays before Great Lent begins, the liturgical texts exhort the faithful to ponder its meaning before undertaking its ascestism” (pg. 18).

Does this mean there is a 5 week period of fasting prior to Great Lent beginning or is this “Pre-Lent” a 5 week preparation for the Great Fast/Lent? Are there “rules” to the fasting, such as no water including no food or just reduced amount of food/water intake? I am asking because I am wondering how Great Lent affects those (like me) who suffer from hypoglycemia, blood sugar issues, and having to work outside in all weather (where dehydration is a real issue depending on which season it is).

I’ve been really wanting to focus more on fasting but I’m not quite sure how. I am somewhat disappointed by the fact that in the Latin Church fasting seems to no longer have an importance as it still does in the Eastern Churches. All of this reading and learning is so fascinating. I hope I will be able to find the courage to start attending the Byzantine parish soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top