Society of St. Josephat - Traditionalists

[grzegorz1014]

I just recently found out about the Society of St. Josephat, and in many ways are almost like the eastern catholic version of the SSPX. They use old Church slavonic instead of the vernacular…

Recently I’ve become more interested in eastern catholcism, I myself being a Roman catholic traditionalist my whole life. I was wondering, what “missal” do they use, just like the SSPX and ICRSS and FSSP all use 1962 Roman missal, is there a set missal which the SSJK use?

I’d like to buy a “hand missal” or whatever just to see what divine liturgy would be, either bilingual with one side old church slavonic and the other side English or Polish. I don’t want the reformed and de-latinized versions that the other ukrainian catholics have recently come up with. I’m wondering what the Society of St. Josephat use. Their website is all in Ukrainian unfortunately. I only speak Polish and hopefully will learn some Russian and Old Church slavonic at my university next semester.

I would like very much when I am in Lwów (or Lviv) to visit them and their seminary. But, is there a “Fortescue” or some other ceremonial book for their liturgy?

Thank you very much,
Grzesiek

 

[dixibehr]

The “Reformed” and “Delatinized” liturgy is mostly in ceremonial. It was promulgated in the Ordo Celebrationis in 1944 for both the “Ruthenian” and “Ukrainian” Churches (which until relatively recently were considered one ritual use) and is availble on line in an English translation at

patronagechurch.com/Ordo-English-1955/ordo-english-1955.htm

The SSJK is functioning in opposition and defiance to the hierarchs of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Those who cling to the Latinizations, such as use of Monstrance and Stations of the Cross, replacing the true liturgical tradition of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, are doing so in direct disobedience to the Roman Pontiffs, who have directed Ukrainian Catholics to return to their sources.

Did you know that the terms of the Union of Brest actually prohibited these Latinizations, anyway?

I have found liturgical Ukranian similar to–or different from–Slavonic just enough to keep me in a state of stimulating uncertainty.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Society of Saint Josephat is not Traditional because they do not value authentic Tradition - they are more aptly termed “pro-latinizers” since they are more anti-Tradition than the actual Church they claim to belong to.

In a sense, one could compare the Society to those in the Latin Church who fight Summorum Pontificum and the Pope on returning to authentic Latin Traditions, instead latching on to false tradition.

 

[countertenor]

The Society of Saint Josephat is not Traditional because they do not value authentic Tradition - they are more aptly termed “pro-latinizers” since they are more anti-Tradition than the actual Church they claim to belong to.

In a sense, one could compare the Society to those in the Latin Church who fight Summorum Pontificum and the Pope on returning to authentic Latin Traditions, instead latching on to false tradition.

Good point!

 

[Diak]

Syro-Malankara is spot on with his comment. The Union of Brest, the original statement of communion of the UGCC with Rome actually requested some of those things the SSJK holds to not be forced upon the UGCC. They also claim to be the “true” spirit of the underground Church, but certainly do not adhere and even actively resist the spirit of Metropolitan Andrey, Patriarch Josyp and numerous other heroes who tirelessly worked to overcome many of the latinizations the SSJK proudly holds to. They persist in upholding innovations foreign to the tradition that both Rome and our own hierarchs and Synod have decreed should be eliminated.

For that matter if the SSJK truly studied the life of its “founder” they would see that St. Josaphat in his time was a very strong defender of the received monastic and liturgical tradition and actively fought against his Basilians adopting too many Latin paramonastic and liturgical practices.

Fr. Kovpak was excommunicated by his Bishop, Kyr +Ihor Vozniak, with the blessing of the entire UGCC Synod (still including a number of bishops remaining from the underground Church days). Rome has acknowledged and agreed with the Synod’s excommunication.

Fr. Kovpak initially appealed and was reinstated briefly in 2003. Patriarch Lubomyr and Kyr Ihor again tried to rehabilitate Fr. Kovpak and gave him yet another opportunity to return to the obedience of his bishop. He responded by having Bishop Williamson ordain several priests and deacons for the SSJK (in the Latin Rite!!!) in 2006 in Warsaw, which was not even within the canonical area of Fr. Kovpak’s previous ministry had he been in a canonically regular situation.

After that the Synod again decreed excommunication, and in 2007 the CDF publically stated that the UGCC Synod’s excommunication stood and Rome considered it to be absolutely in force. This time Fr. Kovpak’s appeal was rejected by the Synod, and when he appealed directly to Rome it was again rejected and he was told he could only resolve his excommunication directly through his own Bishop (Kyr +Ihor) and the Synod.

Fr. Kovpak was specifically not included in the decree lifting the excommunication of the SSPX bishops (as he was never included in the 1988 ipso facto excommunication). When asked recently Cardinal Levada indicated that only the UGCC Synod can do that per his response to Fr. Kovpak’s latest appeal.

One of the larger supporters of the SSJK’s activity, the Transalpine Redemptorists, returned to communion with Rome this past year and as part of the restoration of their monastic community they have agreed to eliminate all support for the SSJK. It is almost certain that any final canonical resolution of the SSPX situation will include severing ties with the SSJK, who are not even of the same liturgical tradition.

I don’t want the reformed and de-latinized versions that the other ukrainian catholics have recently come up with.

What the “other Ukrainian Catholics have recently come up with”, whether the 1988 Synodal Sluzhebnik or the L’viv Archdiocese edition, are consistent with the received liturgical tradition of the Union of Brest as well as later directives of the hierarchy and Rome, is consistent with the Rome Ordo of the 1940s, and unlike the usage of the SSJK does not contain those later 19th century innovations.

 

[dixibehr]

I don’t want the reformed and de-latinized versions that the other ukrainian catholics have recently come up with.<<

What you’re saying is you don’t want authentic Kievan spirituality, but a hybridized (that’s the nice word) rite that is neither truly Byzantine nor truly Roman.

BTW–out of curiousity, would you actually recognize the “delatinized” rite if you saw it? Could you actually tell us what “latinisms” were omitted and where they went?

I doubt it.

 

[Aramis]

In the Ruthenian Church in the US, the latinizations which are missing are easily catalogued…

No more Exposition, no use of the monstrance.
No more speaking the texts of the DL.*
No more protestant hymns
No new Monsignors; Mitered Archpriests instead
No roman miters (Bp. Nicholas + Elko wore both styles of miter while primate of the Ruthenian Church in the US)
No Fiddleback Chasubles for bishops. (Again, Bp. Elko.)
No prohibition on married men in clerical formation

All of these latinizations have been documented as occurring in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and are now missing.

A few hang on:
Missing iconostas (some parishes only)**
Rosary before DL (some parishes only)***
Minimalist tones of the 1963 rendition****

• A “low mass” style of liturgy was allowed for some time, where most of the text was spoken, and the last line or two chanted, with a chanted response.
  ** Those parishes usually have the 4 key icons on the sanctuary dais on stands, even when no Iconostas is present
  *** It’s allowed privately, but is often done corporately.
  **** officially replaced in 2006, based upon the 1913 and older texts, simplified down to core melodies and a few embellishments. Not as simplified as Msgr. Leukevik’s version of 1963, and in different ways.

 

[dixibehr]

Here is the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil in English and Slavonic–pdf file.

 

[Charioteer]

In the Ruthenian Church in the US, the latinizations which are missing are easily catalogued…

No more Exposition, no use of the monstrance.
No more speaking the texts of the DL.*
No more protestant hymns
No new Monsignors; Mitered Archpriests instead
No roman miters (Bp. Nicholas + Elko wore both styles of miter while primate of the Ruthenian Church in the US)
No Fiddleback Chasubles for bishops. (Again, Bp. Elko.)
No prohibition on married men in clerical formation

All of these latinizations have been documented as occurring in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and are now missing.

A few hang on:
Missing iconostas (some parishes only)**
Rosary before DL (some parishes only)***
Minimalist tones of the 1963 rendition****

• A “low mass” style of liturgy was allowed for some time, where most of the text was spoken, and the last line or two chanted, with a chanted response.
  ** Those parishes usually have the 4 key icons on the sanctuary dais on stands, even when no Iconostas is present
  *** It’s allowed privately, but is often done corporately.
  **** officially replaced in 2006, based upon the 1913 and older texts, simplified down to core melodies and a few embellishments. Not as simplified as Msgr. Leukevik’s version of 1963, and in different ways.

Have any married men been ordained as priests in the USA? Does it/will it happen?

 

[Aramis]

Have any married men been ordained as priests in the USA? Does it/will it happen?

For the Ruthenians…
A couple to the priesthood; a bunch to the deaconate. A few in the process. It’s a hard balance to find men who feel that call, and have wives who are willing to cope with the changes in lifestyle it entails, and sufficient support from the parish to get the needed letters of support.

For the Ukrainians, significantly more.

Even the Romans have a few married priests (I know one); they all happen to be converts, tho’.

 

[dixibehr]

There are three married Eastern Catholic priests of different eparchies in my city, and one who is a widower, but was ordained while his wife was alive.

 

[Seamus_L]

Father Kovpak is defending traditions in the Ukrainian Catholic Church that have originated in the Latin Church, but have been embraced by the faithful in some cases for 3 centuries, to my knowledge. I also believe he rejects the Balamand Declaration (Good man) and ecumenism.
Quite frankly, while not being a member of the SSPX or SSJ I strongly sympathise with them, as I see an increasing trend among EC posters and bloggers on the internet (often converts from Protestantism) who regularly attack Papal Infallibility, Priestly celibacy, the Immaculate Conception, Eucharistic Adoration etc.

 

[dixibehr]

Seamus, to Latinize does not mean to Catholicize.

The Latin Church is NOT the standard.

I was wondering, what “missal” do they use, just like the SSPX and ICRSS and FSSP all use 1962 Roman missal, is there a set missal which the SSJK use?<<

It’s not as simple as you are asking. In fact, it’s even a non-question. It’s like asking what strength reed a trombone uses. If you look for an exact one-to-one correspondence between Eastern and Western Churches, you’re going to get confused or misled.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Seamus,

…as I see an increasing trend among EC posters and bloggers on the internet (often converts from Protestantism) who regularly attack Papal Infallibility, Priestly celibacy, the Immaculate Conception, Eucharistic Adoration etc.

If these people are EC, their supposed origin should have no bearing on their opinion. Perhaps their outspokenness and well informed opinion is a bit disturbing, but these people are not your enemies.

Whether former Latins or Protestants or lifelong EC it makes no difference, please don’t discount them with an accusation of prejudice.
Michael*

 

[dixibehr]

Further thoughts on your posting

Father Kovpak is defending traditions in the Ukrainian Catholic Church that have originated in the Latin Church, but have been embraced by the faithful in some cases for 3 centuries, to my knowledge. I also believe he rejects the Balamand Declaration (Good man) and ecumenism.<<

Nothing wrong with the Rosary–but should it be recited before Divine Liturgy, instead of Matins or the Hours?

Nothing wrong with May devotions–but should they replace the devotions to the Theotokos in August that are the true Byzantine tradition?

Nothing wrong with Stations of the Cross and Benediction–but should they replace the Presanctified Liturgy, Akathist, and Great Compline during Lent, which are the traditional services?

Are these traditions, or are they foreign practices?

These are among the Latinizations that Metropolitan Andrew, Patriarch Joseph, and Patriarch Lubomir are trying to root out–Roman borrowings that have supplanted the true traditions of the Ukrainian Church.

The Balamand Declaration is a dead issue, and in any case was dealing with specific pastoral situations in the Middle East that do not apply to Ukraine.

And just what do you mean by “ecumemism” in your post that you find objectionable?

 

[Aramis]

If the faithful in an area want to be Roman, then they should ask their bishop, en masse, for a Latin parish. They should not hybridize.

 

[Diak]

Have any married men been ordained as priests in the USA? Does it/will it happen?

The Ukrainians, Melkites and Romanians have each ordained multiple married men to the priesthood in the US. My UGCC Eparchy has at least 2/3 married parochial clergy presently. I’ve been present at several of these ordinations for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the US.

 

[Diak]

Quite frankly, while not being a member of the SSPX or SSJ I strongly sympathise with them, as I see an increasing trend among EC posters and bloggers on the internet (often converts from Protestantism) who regularly attack Papal Infallibility, Priestly celibacy, the Immaculate Conception, Eucharistic Adoration etc.

So the “EC posters and bloggers on the internet” are more heinous than those who wantonly break Communion with Rome and the UGCC Synod, incur excommunication, and cause grave scandal to the Church? Who continue to act against the Magisterium since at least Leo XIII?

An internet post can hardly be considered Magisterial, Synodal or canonical by Catholic standards and your comparison between the two borders on nonsensical . You’ll have to do better than inuendo on the laundry list of accusations you have made.

But of the accusations you have mentioned, two are not even sensible to consider. We have always had our own tradition with priestly celibacy, which was guranteed by the Union of Brest, our Synod and Rome. As an aside the forced imposition of clerical celibacy in the 20th century was largely due to the outfall and influence of one Latin bishop, Ireland, who has been rightly called “the father of American Modernism” by several authors. In any case Pope Pius XII allowed the controversial Cum Data Fuerit to expire in the late 1950s, a decade before any large-scale liturgical change in the Roman Liturgy, so that has long been a dead issue, except for those who wish to oppose the Magisterium and the UGCC Synod (for that matter Rome herself has ordained married men to the Roman priesthood).

Regarding Eucharistic Adoration outside of the Divine Liturgy - this is simply not in our tradition since we never had the large scale questioning of the Real Presence as you had in the West. Defending a liturgical or paraliturgical practice that was never in the Ordo or Typikon, runs counter to the received corpus of a particular ritual tradition, and is of recent vintage is no different than defending a Latin innovation to that liturgy that was never in the Missal. Absolutely no different.

As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic deacon I am probably more concerned with those who would publically support the excommunicated rather than ephemeral Internet posts. Those such as who would continue to defend uncanonical actions against the UGCC Synod and Rome, the canonical successors of Metropolitan Mikhail (Rahoza) all the way to the confessors Metropolitan Andrey and Patriarch Josyp, in addition to Rome and the Magisterium since at least the time of Leo XIII.

Not one bishop of the former underground Church has endorsed Fr. Kovpak. The only ones who have were Latin and until very recently were excommunicated themselves. As I have mentioned before, those who continue to persist in disobedience when both the Magisterium and the Synod have clearly directed otherwise are in a very precarious spiritual situation.

Even in Ukraine Fr. kovpak’s movement has lost some credibility when he had the SSPX bishops ordain his priests and deacons, and the Transalpines withdrew their support. Any movement who claims to be the true upholder of the Slavonic-Byzantine liturgy and has priests and deacons ordained in the Latin rite can be seen for what it is.

 

[Seamus_L]

Fr Deacon (I think that’s the proper form of address, wouldn’t want you to think that just because I disagree with you, that I disrespect your office)

             I was referring to attacks in a very general sense i,e Priestly celibacy is intrinsically wrong, etc.

            My own belief is that the promotion of extreme distinctions actually runs contrary to our Catholicity, and will lead to eventual polarization. In formulating various dogmas, the universal Church has relied heavily on the writings of theologians of both the East and West. To hear some Orthodox in Communion types though, you'd never get that impression.

           The days of what was called "Latinization" are over, yet the view from cyberspace is that all that originated in the West is somehow toxic and still prevents us from having Molebens, Hours, Matins etc. My obvious question would be, "What's now stopping you from practicing these devotions" Please don't suggest it's because some 80 year old cradle Ukrainian Catholic is quietly mumbling the rosary.

 

[Hesychios]

             I was referring to attacks in a very general sense i,e Priestly celibacy is intrinsically wrong, etc.

Christians in the east do not believe that celibacy is intrinsically wrong. We honor our celibates, and treasure them.

Please provide a source for this allegation.