Author Topic: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy  (Read 287 times)

Wenceslav

Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« on: December 30, 2017, 08:56:41 PM »
Part 1: [i posted this on another forum but reposting it here. Welcome Vinny, I do not want to interfere with the other thread, I would certainly appreciate your comments]

Recently, there have been many good threads discussing the Eastern Catholic Church[Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church]. Many Traditionalist [Roman] Catholics have questions regarding the safety of Eastern Catholic parishes (in North America and Europe) as legitimate sources of the sacraments and a true Catholic environment. The decision, to attend a Divine Liturgy, to fulfill one's Sunday duty is of course left up to the reader. But I think its relevant and helpful to discuss the current environment in the UGCC and associated Byzantine Catholic Churches - including the official position of the Ukrainian Hierarchy, changes in the Liturgy(and their legitimacy), the Holy Mysteries and other disciplinary changes that manifest a "new" direction. I come from a biritual family (i.e. Eastern Slovak) and my family and I have attended a Traditional Divine Liturgy for many years although I now avail myself of the sacraments at a SSPX chapel.

After the fall of Communism in the early 1990s, the priests from the underground Church who valiantly stood against the Bolshevist system (and against schism which the Bolsheviks promoted after the 2nd world war and occupation of Ukraine) were not chosen as the natural successors to the murdered hierarchy of Ukraine. Instead priests from the diaspora "occupied all the leading positions, from the head of the church to the founders of its new educational system [seminaries]. These people [priests from the West] were better educated in the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church...."[1. Churches in-between, Greek Catholic Churches in Postsocialist Europe, S. Mahieu and V. Naumescu, ads, 2008, p. 175].

Hence, it was underground priests like Fr. Basil Kovpak who formed the SSJK [Society of St. Josaphat] with other like-minded priests in 2000 A.D. [in Western Ukraine and Eparchy of L'viv and now supported by the SSPX] to continue to teach the Traditional Catholic Faith not infected with the Modernism of the newly established Hierarchy. Below is an excerpt from 2010 issue of Bells of Fatima Magazine [a] - author Fr. Kovpak [Translation from Ukrainian is mine]:


Quote
....A short analysis of this, of what is occurring in the Catholic Church. Lets analyze our thesis: was it proper [of us] to establish the Priestly Brotherhood of the Holy Martyr Josafat in the UGCC? For this, that the reader may better understand the situation in our Church, and in what direction our present hierarchy is taking us, I offer some quotes from the book by Anthony Arzhakovsky "Conversations with His Beatitude Lubomir Husar" published by Post Confessional Christian Publishing, Ukrainian Catholic University, 2006. [i.e. Lubomir Husar was the head and Metropolitan of the UGCC until 2011] Some excerpts from these discussions (while not taking phrases or words out of context so other interpretations could be made) simply reveal the position of the head of the UGCC, Cardinal Lubomir Husar, and the state of our Church and the direction that our present Hierarchy is taking our Church. (Note, its not possible to relate everything but we can discuss much.) Here are some quotes that reveal the spiritual direction of the UGCC: "How do we understand Uniatism in the classical way and in what way can we establish a new type of unity; the latter which we cannot support enough. We were deceived by the concept [of Uniatism].., We want to be Orthodox, to be in that Tradition, though as Uniats we weren't always faithful [to Orthodoxy]. I believe we lost something from this Tradition [i.e. Orthodoxy], which we are bound once again to find....Our position is very practical. We believe we have no differences with the Orthodox in relation to the Faith. Questions about purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque is a theological question and not a question of Faith. With respect to Communion, our position is as follows; when a Catholic resides in an area without a Catholic Church, he can freely attend and partake of the Holy Mysteries in an Orthodox Church. And vice-versa, when an Orthodox Christian cannot find an Orthodox priest, we cannot refuse him the sacraments, especially with regards to Holy Confession and Holy Communion..."
This is the approach that the head of the UGCC, Cardinal Lubomir Husar, has in Church matters.

Unfortunately this above quote is still the position of the UGCC.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 09:19:01 PM by Wenceslav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Vinny Zee

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2017, 09:01:34 PM »
Part 2: Changes in the Liturgy then and now....

(i) As Fr. P. Skrincosky (a priest and theologian of the Stamford Eparchy) writes in his doctoral dissertation "The Liturgical Legislator in the Ukrainian Church" regarding Pius IX and the encyclical Omnem Sollicitudinem on page 140:

Quote
Pope Pius IX: “This law must be kept in which it is stipulated that without consulting the Holy See nothing should be innovated in the rites of sacred liturgy even in the name of restoring ceremonies which seen to be more conforming to the liturgies approved by the Holy See, unless for the most serious reasons and after approaching the Holy See.”....And again, the Pope further affirms “it is not permitted to anyone, however, without consulting the Holy See to introduce even minor changes in the liturgy, as the apostolic Constitutions abundantly show, which we referred to above.” ....

Fr. Skcrincosky: "The supreme Pontiff, therefore, throughout the Congregation for the Oriental Churches must approve all matters liturgical whether they be essential or accidental form."

Conclusion: Therefore, all changes liturgical cannot be made by the Patriarch or a Synod of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops - they must be approved by the Holy See. The Synod of Zamosc (1720 A.D.) which introduced changes into the Byzantine liturgy was approved by the then Pope. The new Liturgikon or Sluzhebnyk introduced by the Pope's authority in 1941 as well as the Ordo Celebrationis (a few years later) (known as the Recensio Ruthena Editions) did not suppress changes made in the Liturgy by the Synod of Zamosc. Hence the Filioque was still to be incorporated into the Creed, the zeon and sponge were still suppressed. Kneeling during the anaphora/canon and during reception of Holy Communion was not forbidden in the Ordo Celebrationis. Only some pre-schism saints were added to the Ruthenian Sanctorale (of course).

Guess under who's direct influence the following changes were made in the 1980s and 1990s (in Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora) :

(i) standing during the consecration and reception of Holy Communion
(ii) Sacraments of Initiation for infants i.e. Holy Communion given to infants
(iii) The pre-Zamosc practice of "Teplota" or "Zeon" was reinstated into the Liturgy
(iv) The Filioque was removed from the Creed
(v) the environment created that downplayed the Holy Rosary, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other devotions which the Roman books of the 1940s did not forbid
(vi) The incorporation of schismatics and heretics into the commemorations of the Liturgy i.e. "Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas etc ....." See any typical eparchy on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, for example.
(vii) the abandonment of required clerical celibacy which was being implemented Met. Sheptitsky, Bp. Khomyshyn etc in Ukraine and Eastern Europe with great encouragement from the Vatican as well (until the coming of the Bolsheviks and the liquidation of the UGCC).

Answer: JPII - the Apostate (and the general spirit of Vatican II). These changes should be unacceptable and resisted by all Catholics (especially of the sedevacantist persuasion since they were inspired/approved by a Nope and/or his minions) as the SSJK is also doing.

I will expand on other issues with more references and details if anyone wants
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 09:22:01 PM by Wenceslav »
 

TKGS

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2017, 09:39:06 PM »
I will expand on other issues with more references and details if anyone wants

I would love for you to expand on these and other issues.

But I would like to comment on these issues, which I will not be placing in the quote function:

(i) standing during the consecration and reception of Holy Communion
Question:  When did kneeling start in the East?  It is my understanding that even in the West, specific postures for the faithful only began with the introduction of pews in the 1200s. 

(ii) Sacraments of Initiation for infants i.e. Holy Communion given to infants
Comment:  I've always been told this was always the practice of the Eastern Churches.

(iii) The pre-Zamosc practice of "Teplota" or "Zeon" was reinstated into the Liturgy
Question:  What is this?  I have never heard any of these terms.

(iv) The Filioque was removed from the Creed
Comment:  I find this particularly disturbing.  However, we need to remember that the Filioque was not a part of the original Creed.  Even then, its inclusion in the Creed was to make the Faith more clear and removing it cannot be beneficial to the faithful.

(v) the environment created that downplayed the Holy Rosary, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other devotions which the Roman books of the 1940s did not forbid
Comment:  The rejection of the Rosary is, I think, the main reason I could never become Orthodox.  I was not aware that the Eastern Catholics "downplay" the Rosary.  Is this accurate?  I've also read that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a Western devotion and has never been the norm in the East.

(vi) The incorporation of schismatics and heretics into the commemorations of the Liturgy i.e. "Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas etc ....." See any typical eparchy on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, for example.
Comment:  Incorporating any heretic into the liturgy is proof that the liturgy has been corrupted and will not tend towards sanctity.

(vii) the abandonment of required clerical celibacy which was being implemented Met. Sheptitsky, Bp. Khomyshyn etc in Ukraine and Eastern Europe with great encouragement from the Vatican as well (until the coming of the Bolsheviks and the liquidation of the UGCC).
Comment:  Clerical celibacy was required for Eastern Rites working in Western lands in order that the faithful not be confused.  I doubt that this has really been a problem in the West for quite time.  It's use is a disciplinary issue and, due to cultural differences between East and West, I'm not sure this is a problem.  However, I don't understand why Eastern Rites are permitted in the West (just as I don't understand why the Latin Rite should be practiced in the East) because, when people immigrate within two or three generations, the people generally adopt most of the culture of the new home.
 

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2017, 10:48:13 PM »
Hi TKGS,

Its late so I will try to answer some of your points/questions but I promise to get to the rest sooner or later.

(i) Standing during the Consecration and reception of Holy Communion:
In the Ruthenian/Ukrainian  Catholic Church, it has been universal (i.e. kneeling for the consecration and Holy Communion) since at least the middle of the 19th century (according to historical accounts). Although some Ukr. Catholic parishes already practiced this since the Synod of Zamosc (i.e. early 18th century). Up until the years following the VII Council (in the diaspora) and the early 1990s in Ukraine, it would be considered sacrilege to stand for Holy Communion (as it would be for any able-bodied Traditional Catholic of today). WRT the West, I would like to think that kneeling for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament during parts of the Holy Liturgy was an Apostolic practice but I would have to study this more. I know that St. Francis (i.e. 13th century) stated that in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament during Mass "everyone should kneel down  giving praise to God, living and true".

Note, that  these changes were put in place by a false "pope" and a false council for the purpose of leading the UGCC into schism. With respect to the liturgical disciplines etc.,even if  they were once tolerated by the Church i.e. infallibly safe. But are they not evil reforms when implemented for the purposes of leading good Catholics astray,  away from the true Church - a form of the false archaeologism condemned by Pope Pius XII?  It would be as if Latin Rite Catholics would start receiving the Holy Eucharist under the species of bread and wine to placate Utraquist heretics. Both methods of the reception of the Holy Eucharist are quite orthodox, but it would be intrinsically evil to receive under both species as an ecumenical gesture to heretics or schismatics.

more later.......
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2017, 11:30:09 AM »
A little Side Note:
The motives of the Ukrainian Hierarchy and its theologians are quite explicit - i.e. of bringing the UGCC [Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church] into schism (at least schism according to the classical and Traditional Catholic definition).

For example,  comment by the first rector of the prestigious L'viv Theological Academy of the Ukrainian Catholic University about the creation of a new church with dual communion between Rome and Constantinople :
[from book: S. Mahieu and V. Naumescu, “Churches In-Between: Greek Catholic Churches in Post-Socialist Europe” [2008], p. 168.]
Quote
The UGCC started from the baptism of Volodymyr the Great, We [the Churches, Catholic and Orthodox] are all one Kyivan Church which simply split under different jurisdictions – Moscow, Rome and Constantinople… We want to return to our ancient traditions. This is why the Greek Catholic rite has to unite us with the Orthodox… Now we continue to look for a name – Greek Orthodox, Orthodox-Catholic, Kyivan Catholic. This is going on. When we fulfill Christ’s instruction ‘to be one’, then there will be no sense in the existence of a separate group of “Greek Catholic”. We want to be one Kyivan Orthodox-Catholic Church.

The UGCC (as explained by Card. Husar, Met. Shevchuk and many others) is on planned trajectory to form a Kyivan Church which will be  in a novel type of communion - a dual communion  between Constantinople and Rome. To accomplish this, the office and role of the Papacy will have to be reinterpreted in a classical yet heretical Ratzingerian and Wojtylian style - a so-called papacy of the 1st millennium. See section 3.3 No. 53 of "The Ecumenical Position of the UGCC":

Quote
...the UGCC desires to participate in bringing to life the expressed hopes of Pope Saint John Paul II in clarifying the form in which Papal primacy might be exercised. The UGCC is convinced that clarifying the understanding of Papal primacy in relation to him fulfilling several ministries, will not only enrich the Catholic Church in its present ecclesial forms, but will have a positive impact on further perspectives of inter-Christian understanding, given that the historical Christian experience of the 1st millennium bears witness to the fact, that the Papal ministry served as a guarantor for church unity between East and West.

The above quote reflects the most recent and official view of Pat. Svjatoslav and the Synod of Greek Catholic Bishops and can be found in the document "Ecumenical Conception (Position) of the UGCC". (Original document is http://news.ugcc.ua/documents/kontseptsіya_ekumenіchnoi_pozitsіi_ukrainskoi_grekokatolitskoi_tserkvi_75625.html . Decreed Dec. 1, 2015 and came into force on Feb. 23, 2016. For an English translation of the document click http://ecumenism.com.ua/images/1011%20Ecum.%20Koncep.pdf 

Another document from the Ukrainian Catholic University  and two distinguished professors/priests summarizes the plan for the UGCC and the new so-called  "Kyivan Church":  URL: http://er.ucu.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/handle/1/705/Turiy_Traditional%20Churches.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Quote
The UGCC, according to my view, is less concerned in what is its place in the catholic Church, but mostly wishes to see the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. Concretely this Sister–Churches should be and stay autocephalous Churches in the catholic communion (koinonia).
 
This is not just my personal opinion. Such was the relationship between Pomisni Churches in the first millennium based on the principles of conciliarity and synodality. Such ecclesiology coincides with the teaching of Prof. Joseph Ratzinger (presently Pope Benedict XVI), who stated that the Churches in their ecumenical endeavors should strive to return to the ecclesiology as it was in the first millennium, when the Churches was one and undivided. Further, we meet such thoughts and reflections in various documents of the UGCC, particularly since the times of Vatican II.

In the document above, autocephalous means that the new sister churches in this dual communion  would be allowed to keep their previous doctrines (be they orthodox doctrines or not). Also note that this false ecclesiology of the so-called 1st millennium espoused by Ratzinger et al. calls for a limited jurisdiction by the Pope (not universal jurisdiction) - a sort of Primus inter pares which is heretical.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 02:25:02 PM by Wenceslav »
 

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2017, 12:30:47 PM »
TKGS said :
Quote
(ii) Sacraments of Initiation for infants i.e. Holy Communion given to infants
Comment:  I've always been told this was always the practice of the Eastern Churches.

(iii) The pre-Zamosc practice of "Teplota" or "Zeon" was reinstated into the Liturgy
Question:  What is this?  I have never heard any of these terms.

(iv) The Filioque was removed from the Creed
Comment:  I find this particularly disturbing.  However, we need to remember that the Filioque was not a part of the original Creed.  Even then, its inclusion in the Creed was to make the Faith more clear and removing it cannot be beneficial to the faithful.

Why was the above done after VII with the active promotion of JPII? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the above unless they were  promoted to placate the "Orthodox" and prepare the UGCC for the false union with its "Orthodox Sister-Churches" which  I discussed in the above posts. The "Teplota" is an interesting topic in of itself.

The teplota (Slavic) or zeon in Greek refers to the addition of hot boiling water to the chalice after the fraction of the Lamb and immediately before the communion of the celebrants in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. It was abolished by the Synod of Zamosc, universally for the entire Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in the early 1700s and in some eparchies soon after the Union of Bresc (in the early 1600s). Bp. Huculak (Bishop of UGCC) in his book on the Divine Liturgy of St. Chysostom states that the problem was that too much water was being added in some cases. The teplota does not invalidate but the addition of too much water to the chalice certainly does.

I am not saying this is a big problem but its basic Catholic sacramental theology that the chalice mixture must contain (at least) two thirds wine for “validity.” I know personally,  that the more traditional Ukrainian priests in the 1990s were against the re-introduction of the Teplota for this very reason. Certainly, most priests just add a drop or two of hot water so there is no problem. However, after asking a local Ukrainian priest, he informed me that the rubrics for the teplota were removed so its possible for a (young) priest to unwittingly add too much water. He confirmed that the "Orthodox" add as much water as the priest likes thereby invalidating the Eucharist (according to Catholic sacramental theology) in some cases if the priest is sloppy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 01:36:21 PM by Wenceslav »
 

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2017, 01:28:07 PM »
TKGS said:
Quote
(v) the environment created that downplayed the Holy Rosary, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other devotions which the Roman books of the 1940s did not forbid
Comment:  The rejection of the Rosary is, I think, the main reason I could never become Orthodox.  I was not aware that the Eastern Catholics "downplay" the Rosary.  Is this accurate?  I've also read that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a Western devotion and has never been the norm in the East.

The Rosary was adopted by the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the late 17th century. Traditionally one of the greatest prayers/devotions (in the Eastern Church) for Our Lady is the Akathist (very beautiful). The Byzantine modernists managed to use this excuse to downplay the Rosary in favour of the Akathist (i.e. but why can't we have both?). Some parishes may still promote the Rosary but this practice is slowly dying as the older priests and parishioners go to their eternal reward. I realize there may be exceptions, I'm just describing a general trend.

The adaptation of the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament  (and the Feast of Corpus Christi) by the Ruthenian Catholics came as a result of contact between them and their Polish Catholic neighbours. And it came quite early (i.e. 17th century) after the adoption of the Union and it was a way that Ukrainian Catholics differentiated themselves from the "Orthodox" - which of course is no longer necessary in this post-VII world.

What we are seeing is that these venerable Catholic customs which our ancestors gladly adopted hundreds of years ago are being taken away for the false ecumenism promoted by the hierarchy of the UGCC and the modernist Vatican. And it is exactly these same venerable customs that are attacked first whenever the Ukrainians/Ruthenians were forced back into schism i.e. the forced liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Cholm by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century and the communist-inspired liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and Greek Catholic Church of Czechoslovakia in the 1940s.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 02:23:29 PM by Wenceslav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

Wenceslav

Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2017, 02:17:20 PM »
TKGS said:
Quote
(vi) The incorporation of schismatics and heretics into the commemorations of the Liturgy i.e. "Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas etc ....." See any typical eparchy on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, for example.
Comment:  Incorporating any heretic into the liturgy is proof that the liturgy has been corrupted and will not tend towards sanctity.

Palamas was certainly a schismatic and perhaps a heretic for the promotion and development of Hesychasm -a theory even rejected by most "Orthodox" today. See article on NewAdvent  - URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Edmonton, Canada provides some of the prayers  in honour of "St. Gregory Palamas" -Great Vespers. See below and URL:
http://www.eeparchy.com/blog/2017/03/06/march-12-2017-second-sunday-great-fast-st-gregory-palamas-octoechos-tone-2-venerable-father-confessor-theophanes-sigriana-holy-father-gregory-dialogist-pope-rome/

Quote
What hymns of praise shall we sing in honour of the holy bishop?
He is the trumpet of theology,
the herald of the fire of grace, the honoured vessel of the Spirit,
the unshaken pillar of the Church, the great joy of the inhabited earth,
the river of wisdom, the candlestick of the light,
the shining star that makes glorious the whole creation.
..........
What words of song shall we weave as a garland to crown the holy bishop?
He is the champion of true devotion and the adversary of ungodliness,
the fervent protector of the Faith, the great guide and teacher,
the well-tuned harp of the Spirit, the golden tongue,
the fountain that flows with water of healing for the faithful,
Gregory the great and marvellous.

From the Divine Liturgy:
Quote
Troparion (Tone 8 ): Light of orthodoxy, teacher of the Church; its confirmation!* Ideal of monks and invincible champion of theologians.* Wonder-working Gregory, glory of Thessalonica and preacher of grace:* always intercede before the Lord that our souls may be saved!

Comments:
One word - unbelievable, that Catholics could venerate this man as a holy bishop, a great guide and teacher. And in the Divine Liturgy! Not unlike the Novus Ordo honouring "St. JPII" on Oct. 22 as a "great teacher" as well. This is the ecumenical madness and false ecclesiology  that has infected the UGCC post VII.
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 46 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2018, 06:27:17 AM »
I don't see the problem with the Teplota. If the water is added after the communion of the priest then the consecration is certainly valid; historically communion under both kinds often took the form of the faithful receiving the Lord's Body as well as as water with a few drops of the Precious Blood.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Changes in the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2018, 10:15:08 AM »
I don't see the problem with the Teplota. If the water is added after the communion of the priest then the consecration is certainly valid; historically communion under both kinds often took the form of the faithful receiving the Lord's Body as well as as water with a few drops of the Precious Blood.

As I gather, the problem isn't with the Teplota as such, but with the fact that it had become occasion for abuse (pretty serious abuse, at that, given that too much water invalidates the sacramental matter), and it was outlawed for that very reason. 
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav