The Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies

The Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies

THE PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ------ LITURGICAL LEGISLATOR --------------------------------------- IN THE ------------- UKRAINIAN CHURCH ------------------------------- A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Pontifical Oriental Institute of Oriental Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Oriental Ecclesiastical Sciences By Rev. Peter Skcrincosky Priest of the Eparchy of Stamford Director: Very Rev. Alphonse Raes, S.J. Rome – 1963 FOREWORD ------------------ In the last two decades, the Holy See assumed, in a practical and effective manner, the legislative authority for liturgical matter in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. In 1941 it promulgated a liturgikon for the Ruthenians. This was followed by an Ordo Celebrationis (in 1944), which spelled out in greater detail the manner of celebrating the Divine Liturgy, matins and vespers. Other service books followed. 1 Again, Pope Pius XII, in 1957, promulgated his Motu Proprio, Clergi Sanctitati, in which he clearly defined, what had been already established for the Latin Church in the Code of Canon Law, namely, that the supreme liturgical authority in the Eastern rites is the Holy See. The latter fact defined what the Holy See already enjoyed. But it was the first explicit law which established the fact that the liturgical authority for the Oriental rites is the Holy Father. Previously, some moral or physical person was responsible for any new liturgical laws and authentic interpretation thereof. It is our aim in this dissertation to determine who the traditional legislator is, not for all Oriental rites, but specifically for the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite. Furthermore, our scope will be to demonstrate the different stages in which the Holy See has appeared as the supreme liturgical legislator, using the liturgical history of the Ukrainian Church as our basis. 1 Ordo Officii Sanctae ao Magne Dominicae Paschatis in 18°, appeared in 1956; Casoslov in 8°, in 1950, and in 16°, 1950; Rituale Parvum in 18°, 1952; Epistolae and Evangelium for Sunday, etc. in 8°, 1952; Kniha Molebnih Piniji in 18°, 1952; Apostolus in 4°, 1955: Evangelium in 4°, 1958 and in 8°, 1959. TABLE OF CONTENTS --------------------------------- FOREWORD……………………………………………………………………….… TABLES OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………… INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………. PART I THE TRADITIONAL ROOTS OF THE LITURGICAL LEGISLATOR INHERITED Y THE UKRAINIAN CHURCH CHAPTER I. THE LITURGICAL AUTHORITY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH A. The Apostles as Liturgical Authorities...………………………………...……….. B. The Bishops as Liturgical Successors of the Apostles……………………………. C. The Metropolitan as a Liturgical Authority………………………………………. D. Analysis and Conclusions………………………………………………………… CHAPTER II. THE LITURGICAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE A. Introduction………………………………………………………………… B. Liturgical Authorities in the Byzantine Church…………………………..... 1. The Emperor as a Liturgical Authority…………………………….. 2. The Patriarch as a Liturgical Authority……………………………. a. As issuer of intrinsic liturgical matter……………………… b. As provider of extrinsic liturgical regulations…………....... c. As giver of canonical response to questions on liturgical matters……………………………………………………… d. As introducer of new feasts……………………………….... 3. The Patriarch with His Permanent Synod as Liturgical Legislator…... 4. The Patriarch with a Council of Bishops as Liturgical Legislator….... 5. Oecumenical Councils as Promulgator of Canons…………………… 6. Liturgical Acts of Bishops and Others……………………………….. C. Analysis and Conclusions……………………………………………………. PART II THE TRADITIONAL LITURGICAL LEGISLATOR IN THE UKRAINIAN CHURCH CHAPTER III. HE LITURGICAL AUTHORITY I THE EARLY CHURCH OF RUS A. Introduction………………………………………………………………....... B. The Pre-Mongolian Period (988-1240) ……………………………………… 1. The Baptism of the Ukraine (988) …………………………………... 2. The Hierarchy in the Kievan Church ………………………………... 3. Liturgical acts of autonomous bishops ……………………………… C. The Mongolian Occupation (1240-1596) …………………………………… 1. Synod of Vladimir (1274) ………………………………………….... 2. Theognostus (1269-1291) …………………………………………… 3. Cyprian (1390-1406) ………………………………………………… D. Analysis and Conclusions …………………………………………………… CHAPTER IV. THE LITURGICA AUTHORITY AFTER THE UNION OF BREST A. Introduction …………………………………………………….…………… B. The Liturgical Authority about the time of Reunion ………………………... C. Causes of Innovation ………………………………………………………… 1. Political Circumstances ………………………………………………….. 2. Cultural Pressures ……………………………………………………….. 3. Education ………………………………………………………………... 4. Intolerance ……………………………………………………………….. 5. Derision ………………………………………………………………….. 6. Ineffective Liturgical Authority …………………………………………. D. Innovators and Their Modifications …………………………………………. 1. Monasteries ……………………………………………………………… 2. Priests …………………………………………………………………..... 3. Bishops …………………………………………………………………... 4. Metropolitans …………………………………………………………..... 5. Capitula ………………………………………………………………..... a. Lavrysiv, June 6, 1621 ......................................................................... b. Vilna, june 12-19, 1650 ....................................................................... c. Zyrovice, December 19-27, 1661 ....................................................... d. Vilna, September 9, 1667 .................................................................... 6. Synods ....................................................................................................... a. Synod of Zamost (1721) ...................................................................... b. Synod of Lviv (1892) ........................................................................... 7. Liturgika ..................................................................................................... a. Zochowsky’s Liturgikon of 1692 ......................................................... b. The Suprasyl Missal (1733) ................................................................. c. The Unev Euchologion (1740) ............................................................. d. The Pocaiv Liturgikon (1740) .............................................................. e. The Pocaiv Liturgikon (1788) .............................................................. f. Liturgika in the Nineteenth century ..................................................... g. The Lviv Missal, 1905 ………………………………………………. E. Analysis and Conclusions …………………………………………………… PART III THE REVERSION OF THE TRADITIONAL UKRAINIAN LITURGICAL LEGISLATOR TO THE HOLY SEE CHAPTER V. ROME’S RECALL OF THE POWER TO INTERPRET LAWS A. Resolution of Interfaith Problems …………………………………………… B. Resolution of Interritual Problems …………………………………………... C. Privileges …………………………………………………………………….. D. Analysis and Conclusions …………………………………………………… CHAPTER VI. THE RUTHENIAN HIERARCHY’S SURRENDER OF PROMULGATIVE POWER A. Universal or Common Legislation …………………………………………... 1. Universal Apostolic Constitutions ………………………………………. 2. Universal Law of the Code of Canon Law, 1918 ……………………….. B. Oriental Liturgical Legislation ………………………………………………. 1. Apostolic Constitutions ………………………………………………….. a. Demandatam Coelitus ……………………………………………….. b. Umposito nobis ……………………………………………………… c. Allatae sunt ………………………………………………………….. 2. Instructions and Decrees ………………………………………………… 3. Motu Proprio for the Oriental Church (Cleri Sanctitati) ………………… C. Particular Decrees for Ruthenians …………………………………………... 1. Decrees …………………………………………………………………... 2. Motu Proprios ………………………………………………………….... 3. Promulgation of the Ruthenian Edition of the Liturgikon ………………. a. Historical Facts leading to the formation of the Pontifical Liturgical Commission for the Ruthenians ……………………………………... b. Methodology used to edit typical edition of Liturgikon …………….. c. Comparative differences between Roman and Lviv (1905) editions ... d. Special addenda in the letter of promulgation ………………………. e. Ordo Celebrationis …………………………………………………... D. Analysis and Conclusions …………………………………………………… CHAPTER VII. HOLY SEE’S APROVAL NECESSARY FOR LITURGICAL LEGISLATION A. Rome’s Attitude Toward the Liturgical Authority in the Ruthenian Church Prior to Reunion …………………………………………………………………… B. Rome’s Attitude During the Reunion ……………………………………….. C. Rome’s Attitude After the Reunion …………………………………………. D. Analysis and Conclusions …………………………………………………… CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………………. BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………... ABREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………....... INTRODUCTION ------------------------ The traditional legislator in the Ukrainian Church is something of a mystery hidden deeply in the recesses of the fontes cognoscendi of Liturgy. Since hardly any positive laws identifying him exist prior to the Oriental Code, it is necessary to examine and scrutinize extant liturgical acta to learn who, according to custom, is the authority in liturgical matters. Our first step in this proposed project is to gain a concrete idea of a liturgical legislator. But let us begin by defining liturgy as understood in this dissertation. The definition of Liturgy has an interesting historical development, elements of which are contained in the modern definition. According to the profane use of the ancient Greek language it denotes an office or function or public ministerium for the people.2 In the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments the terms designates sacred public functions of priest and Levites legally delegated to offer sacrifices in the temple to honor God and for

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    156 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us