My First Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intrigued_Latin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant only that the church in the Republic of Macedonia (called FROM in Greece) is a Slavonic church unlike the Hellenic church in that part of Macedonia in Greece. The canonical status of the MOC is probably the same as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which puts it in good company from a Ukrainian point of view. I also am interested in the tetrapod. In front of the amvon in Ukraine can be either a tetrapod or a unipod analoi (analogion) with a sloping surface. UOC-MP and ROC churches I think only use the analoi. Can you explain the difference? Do Greek Churches use analogion and tetrapods? Is Confession at the Analogion in Greece? Thank you for your information.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
The Ruthenian parish I belong to has not taken the filioque as long as I have been attending. Coming from a Latin background originally it was something I couldn’t help but notice.

The Ruthenian Eparchy of Parma does not use the filioque officially, although I suppose there are a few places where the congregation has resisted the change.

I visited a parish once that had statues near the altar! What a surprise, but they looked like they had been there a very long time, and the congregation was just a very few elderly individuals.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are still some Byzantine Churches which do not want to reject the ‘Latinization’ that took place many years ago. So if you see statues in a Byzantine Church then they are still Latinized in some respects. Maybe the statues just look good there.

The Byzantine Catholic Church is going through a restoration of going back to the earliest traditions in Liturgy. Our church still have pews however everything else has been restored.

One church near me had to have an iconstas installed, since this church built in 1926 was Latinized.

go with God!
Edwin
 
40.png
Volodymyr:
I meant only that the church in the Republic of Macedonia (called FROM in Greece) is a Slavonic church unlike the Hellenic church in that part of Macedonia in Greece. The canonical status of the MOC is probably the same as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which puts it in good company from a Ukrainian point of view. I also am interested in the tetrapod. In front of the amvon in Ukraine can be either a tetrapod or a unipod analoi (analogion) with a sloping surface. UOC-MP and ROC churches I think only use the analoi. Can you explain the difference? Do Greek Churches use analogion and tetrapods? Is Confession at the Analogion in Greece? Thank you for your information.
Click to expand...
My Melkite parish uses only the tetrapod. I’ve seen the analogion only in parishes that do not have an iconostasis (Greek Orthodox parish in Irvine, CA comes to mind). I cannot speak to the practice in Greece since it seems to depend on whether or not they have an iconstasis.

Deacon Ed
 
Psalm45:9:
I have attended two Divine Liturgies. One was a Ruthenian Catholic Church and the the other was Ukranian. I was very pleased with them, and I left with a feeling that I have not felt since the last Tridentine High Mass I attended. One thing I did notice is at the Ruthenian church, they did not open the royal doors until they sang about the incarnation, they also opened the deacon’s doors. In the Ukranian church, the royal doors were opened to signal the beginning of the Liturgy. I liked the Ruthenian way better. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Many churches in Ukraine follow the Greko-Catholic custom to open the Tsar doors at the end of the Proskomedia and to leave them open throughout the Divine Liturgy. However, other churches follow the probably Russian custom to leave closed the Tsar doors until the Little Entrance, and then open until the Great Entrance. After the Great, the Tsar doors are closed and the zanaves (a drapery) are closed until after the Dostoino jest. Again the Tsar doors and zanaves are closed for the communication of the priests and deacons. These are often old churches with many levels (jarusy?) to the iconostas which is solid (no holes). There are really no churches except Kostyoly (Polish church) that do not have Iconostas in Ukraine. So unlike Father Eduard who noted the Greeks of California lacking both iconostas and tetrapod, I think that tetrapod and analogion are used perhaps by local custom because both occur in Ukrainian churches with beautiful iconostas.
 
40.png
Volodymyr:
Many churches in Ukraine follow the Greko-Catholic custom to open the Tsar doors at the end of the Proskomedia and to leave them open throughout the Divine Liturgy. However, other churches follow the probably Russian custom to leave closed the Tsar doors until the Little Entrance, and then open until the Great Entrance. After the Great, the Tsar doors are closed and the zanaves (a drapery) are closed until after the Dostoino jest. Again the Tsar doors and zanaves are closed for the communication of the priests and deacons. These are often old churches with many levels (jarusy?) to the iconostas which is solid (no holes). There are really no churches except Kostyoly (Polish church) that do not have Iconostas in Ukraine. So unlike Father Eduard who noted the Greeks of California lacking both iconostas and tetrapod, I think that tetrapod and analogion are used perhaps by local custom because both occur in Ukrainian churches with beautiful iconostas.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how the ‘custom’ of leaving the Royal Doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy in parishes of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church came into use, but it is an abuse. I quote an English translation of the Ordo Celebrationis Vesperarum, Matutini et Divinae Liturgiae Iuxta Recensionem Ruthenorum:
  • I. Preliminary Notes
    General Rules
    19. These general rules are to be observed in opening and closing the doors of the iconastasis and the veil (curtain) of the royal doors:
    d) At the Divine Liturgy the royal doors are opened before the Little Entrance and are closed after the reading of the Holy Gospel. They are opened again before the Great Entrance and are closed after it. Finally, they are opened after the Communion of the celebrant and deacon and are closed at the end of the Divine Liturgy. In some places, however, it is the custom to open and close these doors more often.
    e) The royal doors and the side doors **deacon’s doors] remain open during the entire paschal week (Bright Week) even during the Communion of the celebrant.
    f) The royal doors always remain open while a bishop celebrates. {32}
    {32} That is, at the Divine Liturgy. Even at the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy there is a custom in many places to close the royal doors during the Communion of the clergy.
    g) … In the Divine Liturgy, the veil is opened after the Prothesis [Proskomedia] and closed after the Great Entrance; it is opened again when the deacon exclaims: The doors, the doors… and it is closed at the ekphonesis: Holy Things to the Holy…; finally, the veil is opened before the Communion of the faithful and remains open until the end of the Liturgy.
In some regions, it is customary to keep the royal doors and veil open from the beginning to the very end of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, and in the Service of the Presanctified Gifts, after the solemn offering of incense: Let my prayer arise… the royal doors and veil are not closed after the entrance at Vespers. This practic is not to be extended to other regions; on the contrary, it is to be urged that people everywhere should become accustomed to a more accurate observance of the rite.*

Continued…
 
Originally published in Latin by the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Rome 1944. I quoted from: The Order for the Celebration of Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy According to the Ruthenian Recension, Keleher, S. & Figel, J., (Eastern Christian Publications: Fairfax, Virginia, 1996).
  • footnotes do not appear in the Latin original.
  • words in ] are mine
  • the above instructions are repeated in the more details rubrics of the Divine Liturgies (as well as Vespers and Matins).
 
Ruthenians, in the Catholic Church, are those who were brought into union with the Catholic Church from Hungarians at the Union of Uzhorod in 1601. The “Latin” rules you quote probably apply to them. Byelorussian-Ukrainian Church became united to Catholic church at the Union of Brest in 1596. These two churches are separate Catholic Churches. The liturgy for the Ukainian Church is that approved by the Patriarchal Sobor and probably does differ from that of the Carpatho-Rusyns, and that of the Russian Greek-Catholics. There is no one abusing customs only differences in local practice but approved by the hierarchs in charge.

Emphasing Latin-language rules about Greko-catholic liturgy will also deter philo-Catholic Orthodox people. Many orthodox believe that the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod were not “unions” but incorporation of these Churches by the Roman Catholic church. The 32 Articles of Union of the Council of Brest of 1595 need to be respected. These are Churches, not Bureaus of Roman Church.
 
Volodymyre,

The Ordo was promulgated along with the OCS liturgical books requested by the ‘Ruthenian’ bishops, i.e. bishops of Rus’ (Ruthenia in Latin). This includes the Ukrainian Greco-Catholics and Belarusian Greco-Catholics, as well as the Ruthenian Catholics (also known as Byzantine Catholics in the USA). Please note, as requested by the Ruthenian bishops*. Truth be told, they turned to Rome as an arbiter because there was disagreement. As for the document in question being issued originally in Latin, why the surprise? Most (all?) official insturctions/documents issued from Rome first appear in Latin, the language of the church.

AFAIK the Synod of the UGCC has not issued any litugical instructions along the lines of the Ordo, but I can easily ask a bishop or two. I also believe that the Ordo is still binding on the Churches for which it was issued. Sadly most refuse to follow it, prefering to be ‘Orthodox lite’. 😦

As for the Eastern Churches being very much “under” Rome, they have themselves to blame as much as Rome (see Florovsky on Uniatism). But that is history. It is time for these Churches to tell the Curia and various Congregations “Thank you, good bye.” Sadly, some ECs prefer to be ‘odd Catholics’ (looking up to ‘real’ Catholics?) than to be ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’. There are hundreds of years of conditioning to overcome, so it will take a while. But some of us doing our best. 😉

З Богом,

Андрій
  • The letter accompanying the first of the Ruthenian Rescension books was sent [1941] to the Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych and his suffragans (the Bishop of Peremyshl’ and the Bishop of Stanislaviv), to the Bishop of Mukachevo-Užhorod and the Bishop of Prešov, to the Bishop of Križevci, to the Bishop of Hajdúdorog, and to the Apostolic Exarchs in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Winnepeg. It was also communicated to the Major Superior of the Basilians.
 
Well I do not know about these “experts” who are posting here but there are many different recessions within the Byzantine Divine Liturgy (Melkite, Ruthenian, Russian, Ukrainian just to name a few).

These recessions differ as to melodies/tones the entrances, the way the incenseing occurs during the Liturgy, certain prayers that are taken aloud, just to name a few. To try and say that there is only one way is a bit off, especially when the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church is working on new rubrics for our Church.

As for the comment that we are “under the Pope”… I met a subdeacon from Uzhorod and he commented that no we are not under the Pope, his chair is.

We are in communion with the Holy Father.
Orientale Lumen:
Sadly most refuse to follow it, prefering to be ‘Orthodox lite’.
Click to expand...
I also take great offense at this comment. :tsktsk:

I am not Orthodox :nope: , I am not Orthodox in Communion with Rome :nope: , I am a Byzantine Catholic :yup: .
 
Orientale Lumen:
Volodymyre,

The Ordo was promulgated along with the OCS liturgical books requested by the ‘Ruthenian’ bishops, i.e. bishops of Rus’ (Ruthenia in Latin). This includes the Ukrainian Greco-Catholics and Belarusian Greco-Catholics, as well as the Ruthenian Catholics (also known as Byzantine Catholics in the USA). Please note, as requested by the Ruthenian bishops*. Truth be told, they turned to Rome as an arbiter because there was disagreement. As for the document in question being issued originally in Latin, why the surprise? Most (all?) official insturctions/documents issued from Rome first appear in Latin, the language of the church.

AFAIK the Synod of the UGCC has not issued any litugical instructions along the lines of the Ordo, but I can easily ask a bishop or two. I also believe that the Ordo is still binding on the Churches for which it was issued. Sadly most refuse to follow it, prefering to be ‘Orthodox lite’. 😦

As for the Eastern Churches being very much “under” Rome, they have themselves to blame as much as Rome (see Florovsky on Uniatism). But that is history. It is time for these Churches to tell the Curia and various Congregations “Thank you, good bye.” Sadly, some ECs prefer to be ‘odd Catholics’ (looking up to ‘real’ Catholics?) than to be ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’. There are hundreds of years of conditioning to overcome, so it will take a while. But some of us doing our best. 😉

? ???,

???
  • The letter accompanying the first of the Ruthenian Rescension books was sent [1941] to the Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych and his suffragans (the Bishop of PeremyshlÕ and the Bishop of Stanislaviv), to the Bishop of Mukachevo-U?horod and the Bishop of Pre?ov, to the Bishop of Kri?evci, to the Bishop of Hajdœdorog, and to the Apostolic Exarchs in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Winnepeg. It was also communicated to the Major Superior of the Basilians.
Click to expand...
 
Shanovniy Andriy

This document from 1941 or the book quoted from 1955 must not take into account the changes approved by the Patriarchal Sobor for the UGCC in 1986 at the millenium of the Baptism of Rus-Ukraina. These changes, introduced into US/Canada in 1986, are slowly to appear in Ukraine but include Ukrainian language during liturgy. Probably these were approved by Vatican congregatia.

But isn’t that the abuse, that changes for the Church of Kyiv-Halich must be approved by Vatican congregatsia. Ruthenian Recession (ja ne znaju tse latinske slovo) according to what I know applies only to Carptho-Rysn parishes, not true?

Perhaps, I think as you, I prefer Slavonic and Divine Liturgy without omission. But the abuse is that the patriarch of Kyiv-Halich must have liturgical decisions disputed by latin Catholics from some Latin book approved by the patriarch of West. Papa ryms’ky is Church teacher, not administrator in the East, as he is in the West. Please re-read the 32 articles of the Council of Brest (which allowed union of 1596) to see if this union is what the Ukrainian (??Ruthenian, Rusan) bishops of Rech Pospolita desired or has this church engulfed by the Patriarchate of the West??

Slava Ukraini!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top