Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/323

 RUTHENIAN

277

RUTHENIAN

In view of this concordant, extrinsic and intrinsic, evidence, little importance is attached by scholars generally to the grounds which certain critics have put forth to disprove the historical character of the Book of Ruth. It is rightly felt, for instance, that the symbolical meaning of the names of several persons in the narrative (Noemi, Mahalon, Chelion) is not a conclusive argument that they have been fictitiously accommodated to the characters in the episode, any more than the similar symbolical meaning of the proper names of well known and fully historical per- sonages mentioned in Israel's annals (Saul, David, Samuel, etc.). It is rightly felt likewise that the striking appropriateness of the words put on the lips of certain personages to the general purpose of edifica- tion apparent in the Book of Ruth does not necessarily disprove the historical character of the work, since this is also noticeable in other books of Holy Writ which are undoubtedly historical. Finally, it is readily seen that however great the contrast may ap- pear between the general tone of simplicity, repose, purity, etc., of the characters delineated in the episode of Ruth, and the opposite features of the figures which are drawn in the Book of Judges, both writings describe actual events in one and the same period of Jewish history; for all we know, the beautiful scenes of domestic life connected in the Book of Ruth with the period of the judges may have truly occurred during the long intervals of peace which are repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Judges.

V. Author and Date of Composition. — The Book of Ruth is anonymous, for the name which it bears as its title has never been regarded otherwise than that of the chief actor in the events recorded. In an ancient Beraitha to the Talmudic treatise "Baba Bathra" (Babylonian Talmud, c. i), it is definitely stated that "Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth"; but this ascription of Ruth to Samuel is groundless and hence almost universally rejected at the present day. The name of the author of the book of Ruth is unknown, and so is also the precise date of its composition. The work, however, was most likely written before the Babylonian exile. On the one hand, there is nothing in its contents that would com- pel one to bring down its origin to a later date; and, on the other hand, the comparative purity of its style stamps it as a pre-exilic composition. The numerous critics who hold a different view overrate the im- portance of its isolated Aramaisms which are best accounted for by the use of a spoken patois plainly independent of the actual developments of literary Hebrew. They also make too mucli of the place oc- cupied by the Book of Ruth among the Hagiographa, for, as can be easily realized, the admi.s.sion of a writing into this third division of the Hebrew Canon is not necessarily contemporary with its origin. But, while the internal data supplied by the Book of Ruth thus point to its pre-exilic origin, they remain inde- cisive with regard to the precise date to which its composition should be referred, as clearly appears from the conflicting inferences which have been drawn from them by recent Catholic scholars.

Commentaries. — Catholic: Clair (Paris, 1878); von Hum- MELAUKR (Paris, 1888) ; Fillion (Paris, 1889) ; Vioouroux (Paris, 1901); Cramponi. Protestant: Wright (London, 1864); Keil (Leipzig. 1874); Bertheau (Leipzig, 1883); Oettle (Nordlingen, 1889);Bertholet (Freiburg, 1898) ; Nowack (Goet-

tingen, 1902).

Francis E. Gigot.

Ruthenian Rite. — There is, properly speaking, no separate and distinct rite for the Ruthenians, but inasmuch as the name is often used for the modifica- tions which the Ruthenians have introduced in the Byzantine or Greek Rite as used by them, a brief description of them is proper. These modifications have come about in two ways. In the first place, the ancient Slavonic missals used in Russia and in Little Russia (Ruthenia) differed in many instances from

the Greek as used at Constantinople, and the correc- tion of these differences by the Patriarch Nikon gave rise to the Old Ritualists (see Raskolniks). When, therefore, the Ruthenians came into union with the Holy See in 1595, they brought with them in their liturgical books several of the usages and formulse which Nikon afterwards corrected at Moscow in the Orthodox Church. Where these diff(>rences presented no denial or contradiction of the faith the Holy See allowed them to remain, just as they have allowed the rites of many religious orders. In the second place, after the union had become a fi.xed fact, numbers of the Polish Latin clergy and laity seemed to find in the Greek ceremonies and forms of language some apparent contradictions of the faith as more fully elaborated in the Roman Rite. This seemed to them to indicate a lack of unity of the faith, and the Greek Ruthenian clergy in the Synod of Zamosc (1720) made a number of changes in the Byzantine Rite, particularly that of the Mass, so as more clearly to e.xpress the unity and identity of their faith with that of their brethren of the Roman Rite. These changes ar(> sometimes bitterly spoken of by Russian authors as "latinizing", and the majority of them were prob- ably unnecessary. When we consider that the Mel- chites, Rumanians, and Italo-Greeks have kept the old forms thus changed, it does not seem that they were required in order to ex-press the complete unity of the faith. Nevertheless they were sufficient to cause them to be spoken of as the Ruthenian Rite, as distinguished from the older form of the Byzantine Rite (see Con- stantinople, Rite of; Greek Catholics in Amer- ica; Greek Church).

The chief modifications introduced were the addi- tion of the Filioque {i ol Syria) to the Creed, and the commemoration of "the holy universal Chief Bishop N. the Pope of Rome", in the Ektcnc and in the general commemoration at the Great Entrance; while the emphivsis laid on the words of consecration rather than on the Kpiklesis (invocittion) may be said to also constitute a difference from the Orthodox Rite. The addition of the Filioque is not required even in Italy, for at Rome the Creed is still said in Greek without it; but there it is simply an ancient custom and no indication of any difference in doctrine. As to the prayers for the pope, the various Orthodox Churches of Russia and Eastern Europe have never hesitated to change the Byzantine liturgy in order to insert prayers for the Holy Synod, imperial family, etc., even carrying them out to great length. The Ruthenians however differ from the other Greek Catholic nationalities and from the Orthodox churches in many other peculiarities of rite.

In the Proskomide of the Divine Liturgy the Ruthe- nians are allowed to prepare for Mass with one altar- bread (prosphora) or with three, cr even with the dry Agnctz (the square Greek host) if no prosphoroe can be had, instead of requiring five prosphone. Then too the Ruthenian priest may omit the full number of particles to be placed on the paten, and may place only one for the various ranks he is required to com- memorate, or in exceptional cases where there are no particles "the priest may celebrate with the Agnetz alone" (Decretum Syn. Leopoliensis, p. 83). The number of the saints to be commemorated has also been cut down to a few principal names. When the Mass of the Catechumens or public part of the Divine Liturgy begins, the Royal Doors of the Iconostasis are thrown wide open and continue so during the entire Mass. There are no rubrics directing them to be open and shut during the service, nor is there any veil to be drawn. Formerly this was the practice in the old Slavonic Churches and Missals, and is still followed in the Court Church until after the Great Entrance is completed. The custom of reverencing during the singing of the Edinorodny Syne (Filius unigenitus) and the Creed at the word vocheloviech-