D
dvdjs
Guest
You are not responding to my questions.
- Status
You are not responding to my questions.
V
Vico
Guest
Q. Can you substantiate Internet mavins?
A. I do not rely on internet mavins [experts] as a reference so I do not attempt to. Sometimes I have posted links to interesting discussions or ideas but they are not authoratative. Using authoratative book published sources and Church documents is my mode.
Q. How much respect to the particularity of tradition was given?
A. It would be necessary to establish criterea and do a quantative analysis to determine this precisely. You have seen the list of the published recensions which identify the particular traditions.
Q. How were Latin-isms and authentic practice determined?
A. You can read some about it from Fr. David Petras here:
speroforum.com/a/41334/Ad-Orientem-The-Ruthenian-Recension
davidpetras.com/
I mentioned the book on Andrey Sheptytsky in a previous post, and that I learned about the liturgical reform history there.
M
mcpush
Guest
Believe or not I have heard & used the term “dupa” many times in my 48 years, but I’ve never seen it in print! LOL
mcpush
D
dvdjs
Guest
Where I grew up there was a popular bumper sticker: you bet your dupa I’m Polish.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Ha. My bad with the indefinite antecedent. The question was can you substantiate your comments, and not just bey rounding up support from like-minded internet mavens.
Yes. Substantiation would be difficult. But is is required to substantiate your comments.
Q. How were Latin-isms and authentic practice determined?
A. You can read some about it from Fr. David Petras here:
speroforum.com/a/41334/Ad-Orientem-The-Ruthenian-Recension
davidpetras.com/
I mentioned the book on Andrey Sheptytsky in a previous post, and that I learned about the liturgical reform history there.
I will try to get hold of the book on Shepytsky. I am familiar with Fr. Petras’s writings. in fact he was the first whom I heard criticizing the Tisserant methodology as just using Russian practice for whatever varied among editions within a designated recension. And that may have meant the loss of some particular elements, that were not Latinisms at all. Yes - obvious latinisms were removed, but so were other elements that should have been respected. That may be why the Roman editions had so little traction.
V
Vico
Guest
I will try to get hold of the book on Shepytsky. I am familiar with Fr. Petras’s writings. in fact he was the first whom I heard criticizing the Tisserant methodology as just using Russian practice for whatever varied among editions within a designated recension. And that may have meant the loss of some particular elements, that were not Latinisms at all. Yes - obvious latinisms were removed, but so were other elements that should have been respected. That may be why the Roman editions had so little traction.
Original Vico comment:
*
Regarding it you asked: can you substantiate your comments?
Certainly it is a matter of history that the Congregation for Oriental Churches did the work to produce the variouis recensions, headed by the Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches, Cardinal Tissarant (1884-1972), so the issue must be: were the Latinizations removed, dating back to the time of Metropolitan Isidore (1438).
A comparison can be made against what was in use at the time (1438) and the revised versions to see what was removed. The two slavic recensions were in Slavonic: Russian/Serbian/Bulgarian and Ukrainian/Ruthenian. Page 219 in Morality and reality: the life and times of Andrei Sheptyts’kyi includes information on liturgical reform. Andrei Sheptyts’kyi published his own recension which started the actions needed to get an official recension.
I got this book through interlibrary loan (serach in WordCat):
Morality and reality: the life and times of Andrei Sheptyts’kyi by Paul R. Magocsi, Andrii Krawchuk, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1989
books.google.com/books?id=TmXYeKOISCoC&dq=Morality+and+reality:+the+life+and+times+of+Andrei+Sheptyts%27kyi&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Fit3TOCxD5CesQOk1dygDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’d hate to lose that bet.
A
Aramis
Guest
Just remember, brethren: All ritual development originated with someone somewhere altering a rubric or two… At some point, it becomes institutional, and eventually, tradition.
H
Halyna
Guest
You are confusing me. The Slovak churches I’ve attended were RC ( as per Croation, Polish etc).
Though I understand some churches cannot afford an iconastasis, in true Eastern Rites, the women of the parish would embroider the icons for the iconastas (I have those very patterns myself and have made these for churches).
I have many Slovak friends and even a parish priest that is Slovak and they are Roman Catholic. Please advise.
Though I understand some churches cannot afford an iconastasis, in true Eastern Rites, the women of the parish would embroider the icons for the iconastas (I have those very patterns myself and have made these for churches).
I have many Slovak friends and even a parish priest that is Slovak and they are Roman Catholic. Please advise.
V
Vico
Guest
There are both Latin Catholic parishes in Slovakia and elsewhere consisting of natives or immigrants from Slovakia, and then there are Slovak Catholic parishes consisting of natives or immigrants from Slovakia. These are two different Catholic churches both in communion with the Pope of Rome.
For example, there are two Catholic Diocese/Eparchy in Brataslava, Slovakia:
- Bishop Peter Rusnák of the Slovak Catholic Church, Eparchy of Brataslava of the Slovak Metropolitan Greek Catholic Church (Presov), which is subject to the Holy See.
- Archbishop Stanislav Zvolenský of the Latin Catholic Church, Metropolitan Archdiocese of Brataslava, which is subject to the Holy See.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
In America, Eastern-rite Slovak churches would be called Ruthenian or Carpatho-Rusyn or sometimes just “Byzantine”, and they have their own eparchies separate from the Roman Catholic dioceses.
V
Vico
Guest
It is true that in the USA the Byzantine Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh cares for the faithful of many of the eastern Catholics that do not have an eparchy (or close parish) in the USA of their own Church sui iuris (such as the Slovak Catholic Church sui iuris). The Greek Catholic Church in Europe was divided up into ritual Churchs (sui iuris) fractions based upon heritage, including Melkite, Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Krizevci (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo), Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, Italo-Albanian, Russian, Belorusan. We have members of nine different Churches sui iuris attending our Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic parish, according to our priest, including Italo-Albanian and Romanian.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Our church was originally 100% Slovak, all from the same village. Today of course only about half the parish is ethnically Slovak, with one Ukrainian family, a Hungarian deacon, and the rest converts from Protestantism or Mormonism and people who translated from Roman Catholicism.
D
dvdjs
Guest
This is a bit off. Many of the sui juris churches that you list have the very same “hertiage” all being daughters of Muckachevo. Among them would Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian per se (Uzzhorod), some “Romanian” (Maramorosh and environs), and Krizevci (with Zemplin Rusyn immigrants). Division upon national lines followed the development of these lines through the 20th century. This development came after the bulk of the immigration of Greek Catholics from those eparchies. While there were American immigrants who identified as, for example, Rusyn, Hungarian, or Croatian among Greek Catholics that formed the Pittsburgh eparchy, the connection to the Eparchy was clear and deeply rooted in tradition, most notably prostopinije and common hymns. It was not a matter of simply being cared for since they did not have their own bishop; they did have their own bishop - in Pittsburgh.
V
Vico
Guest
I do not see what it off. The heritage includes the country lived in and the language used in the liturgy. But I agree with what you say about how the development occurred. The CCEO innovated the term Church sui iuris in 1990. Divided into fractions by heritage is how the CCEO defines those ritual Churches today, independent of how it was before. For example there was a time when one was an ascribed member of a Church by baptism using the ritual of that Church, rather than by the fathers Church, regardless of the ritual used (today).
For the Rusyns, having immigrated from several countries, with changing borders, had some requirements placed upon them by their governments, such as the Hungarian Greek-Catholic priests that were Carpathian. This lead to a split of the Ruthenian Church finally into several, for example a historic timeline marked with codes for todays ritual Church (U = Ukrainian, R = Ruthenian/Byzantine):
? Lemkowszczyzna (U)
? Kamyanets (U)
1087 Przemysl (U)
1677 Lviv (U) (later moved to Kiev)
1771 Mukacheve (R)
1777 Krizevci (Croatian)
1818 Eparchy of Presov (Slovak)
1885 Ivano-Frankivsk (U)
1892 Father Alexis Toth, begins a merge with the Orthodox that becomes (in 1970) the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) – Carpatho-Rusyn supressed
1912 Canadian Exarchate (U)
1912 Eparchy of Hajdudorog (Hungarian)
+
1924 Ukrainian Exarchate USA 1924 – Bishop Constantine Bohachevsky (U)
1924 Ruthenian Exarchate USA 1924 – Bishop Basil Takach (R)
1924 Apostolic Exarchate Miskolc (Hungarian)
1929 Father Orestes Chornock begins what becomes the (ACROD) American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese (Constantinople)
+
1958 Metropolitan Archdiocese of Philadelphia from Exarchate (U)
1963 Eparchy of Pittsburgh from Exarchate (R)
1977 ritus bizantini - renamed from Pittsburgen(sis) Ruthenorum (R)
1990 CCEO (promulgated 1991)
1996 Apostolic Exarchate (from Presov) Czech Republic (R)
2001 Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia created (mostly ethnic Albanians)
2003 Apostolic Exarchate Serbia and Montenegro (Croatian)
2008 Slovak Metropolitan Church (from Eparchy of Presov), with exarchate of Kosice becoming an Eparchy, and Eparchy of Brataslava (Slovak)
D
dvdjs
Guest
- I am not sure how you are using the word “heritage”. The regions that I mentioned were all in one church in Austria-Hungary; although there were other spring feeding some of these churches, there was one root for all of these sui juris churches of today, which are subdivided along national frontiers.
- The idea of the BCC in America as a caretaker of Slovak, or Hungarian, or Croatian churches - similar perhaps to the Melkite association with some Russian parishes, or Italo-Greek and BCC - misses the first point entirely. There is an integral unity of the of the daughters of Uzzhorod that is vastly different than these relations that are properly considered care-taker relations. Thus historical Slovak or Hungarian or Croatian US parishes belong to the BCC. They are not a parishes of foreign churches that are administered by the BCC.,
V
Vico
Guest
It seems that you mean tradition (as defined in the CCEO). By heritage I mean by rite. Rites arise from traditions of a distinct people, and by manner of that rite, a Church sui iuris expresses the faith.
It is the canon law that defines Church sui iuris this way:
CCEO TITLE 2 - Churches Sui Iuris and Rites
Canon 27.
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.
Canon 28.
- A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
- The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
- Status