Author: David Petras
Title: Time For The Lord To Act: A Catechetical Commentary On The Divine Liturgy

Available from:
http://www.davidpetras.com
Byzantine Seminary Press
P.O. Box 7626
Pittsburgh, PA 15214
byzantinepress@aol.com

Since this book is relevant to the current discussion on the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy I am creating this thread as a placeholder for specific discussions of the book.

My book"Time for the Lord to Act" has been released and is available now from the Byzantine Seminary Press. Individual copies are $ 10, for 10 or more copies, $ 8 per copy.

Fr. Dave

Perhaps Father David might indulge with a list of the book's table of contents or a brief precis of its scope, to satisfy those who otherwise are finding it difficult to restrain themselves from speculating as to content and scope.

Alternatively, I'd suggest that folks be on the lookout for a review of it (which will, shortly I'm certain, be posted somewhere on the web, on someone's blog if nowhere else) or wait for whomever first gets a copy to post some info here.

A string of posts asking or speculating about it will serve little purpose and won't survive. Your cooperation in this regard is anticipated and will be much appreciated.

Many years,

Neil

I just finished skimming through the book. It appears to be a collection of Father David�s newspaper columns. There is nothing in the text that justifies any change to the Divine Liturgy.

Dear John,

That's disappointing. I was hoping for a vigorous defense of the changes. I've read the newspaper columns already, and, although there is much of value in them, they aren't written in order to justify the new liturgy. I think we need such a justification.

In fairness to Fr. David, he's not necessarily the driving force behind the changes. But, if that's the case, whoever is needs to write a defense. Otherwise, it will be perceived as clericalism, and I think will be a bad thing for our Church. I hope I'm wrong.

Not wanting to speak for Father David, I think his purpose was to offer catechetical reflections on the Divine Liturgy, not develop an apologetic for the changes.

I would argue, though, that such an apologetic would be an interesting read if he was so inclined to put one together.

Gordo

I have taken the opportunity to obtain this book, and spent a great deal of my time plowing my way through it. I use the expression �plowing� because of the style and manner it was written has made someone who enjoys reading on the subject actually labor to finish one chapter at a time. For a book that is supposed to be catechetical in nature, the only thing it inspires is tedium and confusion.

Examples of what I am implying are the author can not finish any given point without completely abandoning the point and jumping to another and repeating the same cycle. There are no footnotes or annotations, so one must assume the author is either uninformed as to his material and can not properly make his point, or that the material and points he is attempting to be made are not able to backed up by any sources legitimately. In some paragraphs multiple points or issues are attempted to be made at the same time leaving the reader in outright confusion as to what the author�s point is initially.

Because of the lack of reference and footnotes, the author builds an extremely poor case for any of the liturgical points that he is trying to make. Any historical background laid out shows very little if any correlation as to the original sources (again without specific reference) he alludes to. For a book that is supposed to be catechetical in nature I find that it teaches very little about something that is as essential to the core of Byzantine Worship, as the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. The only portion that I would state is adequate is the glossary of the book.

I found the book to be rather disappointing in that I am sure the author could have given a better explanation being that his background is in theological education. Instead of paying for this book, I could only recommend that the members of the Ruthenian Metropolia instead withhold the funds that would be spent on this book, and instead to take a special collection in order to have someone with experience and knowledge in catechetical writing be employed and possibly give a good catechetical explanation. Maybe then the book can live up to its title, �Time for the Lord to Act�.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I am reading Fr. Petras' book currently. I believe that it requires slow digesting, perhaps a chapter a day or less, which would be in keeping with the fact that much of it appeared as a series of articles. Reading it in increments gives time to reflect on Father's message. I am finding it worthwhile. I suspect other Ruthenians may also, but it is definitely not light reading even if only about 144 pages of text.

Jim,

I don't think the good Lord gave us that much time on our earthly life to read and digest that dribble. If you are going to print something that is supposed to teach, then do so. I found nothing in it with the exception of a glossary that would make it anything that would be used in any sort of educational sense. It never stated in the book, to read it and then take the rest of your life to get the what is really trying to be said. It is supposed to be a catchetical book.

Maybe the author should have spent sometime teamed with someone who actually knows how to educate. I stand by the points of my review, and could not recommend anyone wasting their hard earned cash on it.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Fr. Anthony,

Perhaps you could take one of the specific parts of the book and dissect it, so that others can see if you review has merit? I vote for the section on the antiphons, if there is one. Does he make an argument for their abbreviation?

I know you probably don't want to do that, but a point by point analysis of at least part of the book would make the case for the rest of your review. Otherwise, the review reads: "This book is bad. Why? Because it's bad!" If it's bad, show us some examples.

With respect,
Karl

Karl,

If you want to put the text up, I'd be willing to do so. But without any merit of reference on Father Petras' part I would state that anything placed up and argued is purely subjective. He should have thought of it before publishing anything like this. I stand by my premise, it teaches little in the way of justifiable fact, and by his ignoring to reference it only goes to prove it. If you reread the review, it states that quite openly.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony and Karl,

My understanding is that the text was made up of his articles in epacharial newspapers like Horizons, which I generally enjoyed. If there are no citations, I think that it is an error in judgement on his part not to go back and add his citations for the benefit of the text.

It sounds, though, that the issues are far more than just a lack of citations...

Thanks for the initial recation/review. I look forward to seeing some of your analysis.

Gordo

Gordo,

There is nothing to analyze except the merits of the book. Without proper citations it is an effort in trying to impose one's subjective opinion over the other. Maybe the author should have thought of that, instead of trying to promote his own writings without any benefit of accepted scholarship.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I am wondering how other Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenian) are responding to Fr. Petras' book as well. I found his discussion on Tradition as opposed to traditionalism very relevant to reflection on liturgical changes.

Since it is known that I read the Byzantine Forum, I am noting only that I have seen Father Anthony's review of my book "Time for the Lord to Act." Since the review questions my personal writing style, ability to teach and scholarship, I feel that any response carries the danger of personal polemic. I am grateful to our Lord that so many have found it a valuable resource for their understanding of the Liturgy, and I pray that God will grant Father Anthony joy and all his blessings in the upcoming glorious feasts of His Birth and Baptism,

Fr. David

I had a very lengthy reply on your book that was removed by Irish Melkite this morning. It was neither rude nor aggressive. I did not save it, but if I find it I will personally send it to you.

Jim,

Exactly how did you find his discussion on Tradition vs traditionalism very relevant to the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy? The only place he really talks about it is on pages 31-33.


But the Liturgical Instruction says:


Father David's point about Rome telling us to develop the Liturgy is inaccurate. Rome told us specifically that restoration precedes updating. Why does Father David reject Rome's directive? This is not the only place where Father David is in error. Anyone familiar with the Vatican documents who reads Father David's book can find dozens of places where he misquotes or misapplies them.

Father David does not say specifically who he charges with traditionalism.

He quotes Jaroslav Pelikan: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Does he apply it to Rome, who has directed us to restore the 1941 Sluzebnik? Is Rome guilty of traditionalism? Is Rome directing us to the dead faith of the living?

Does he apply it to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who has recently ordered that the 1941 Sluzebnik and the other books (including the Ordo Celebrationis)? Are the Ukrainians guilty of traditionalism? Are the Ukrainians imitating the dead faith of the living?

Does he apply it to all of Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is certainly not making any of the changes Father David is urging our bishops to make.

Who exactly is guilty of traditionalism? Father David never says. He only hints that anyone who disagrees with his revision of the Liturgy is guilty of traditionalism.

Father David is certainly a capable scholar. I also know him as a good and holy man. It is a shame that he chose not to produce a scholarly work.

JD

Father David,

Don't exaggerate.

Father Anthony does not question your ability to write well, your ability to teach or your ability to do decent scholarship. His review of is only of your one work. Surely you do not claim that all of your work is perfect and beyond criticism?

You have not provided references or footnotes. You cannot claim that your book is scholarly.

JD

John Damascene is correct with regard to the page numbers in Fr. Petras' book for the subchapter "Tradition and the Liturgy". It is on pages 31 through 33. I particularly like Father's statement on page 33:

Father says, "We must avoid "traditionalism" like a plague, for a mindless clinging to what has been done can distort and ruin Tradition, but we must be true "traditionalists," people who work to understand the faith and to celebrate it with beauty."

I am all for celebrating the Divine Liturgy with beauty and being a true traditionalist. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. How are we following tradition by leaving men out of the Creed and mankind out of the Divine Liturgy? What is mindless about a faithful translation? Speaking of "traditionalists" is an easy out for dealing with those who want to actually follow, well, for lack of a better term and in the words of Tevya, TRADITION!

Jim - anyone who reads this Forum even casually would have to see the irony that you are a "fond supporter" of the group that advocates such a strict adherence to the chant/music in the Bokshaj Prostopinije that "slavery" would not be a strong enough term, yet you have no problem with a Liturgikon that would chop up the Divine Liturgy beyond the point of recognition.

This type of inconsistency is proof positive that the COMMON AGENDA is "change for the sake of change."

Matthew,

Whatever possessed you to name me as the Moderator who removed your post, I strongly recommend that you know of what you speak before you do so. I neither saw your post nor removed it and know of it only because another poster mentioned it to me.

Many years,

Neil

PAL & All,

The purpose of this forum is discussion of books - in this case Father David's book. One can certainly conclude that individual opinions regarding his work are formed, to some extent, on the biases of the reviewer. However, keep in mind:

• each is entitled to their own opinion of it, regardless of how formed,
• there is no requirement that anyone's opinion mirror their words, thoughts, or actions vis-a-vis any other aspect of ecclesial or liturgical life
• the function of this discussion is NOT a review or critique of any reviewer

Hence, future posts should focus on the merit of the work, presentation of one's opinions regarding the content, and dialogue, discussion, and debate of the opinions offered by others, presented in a manner that is civil, charitable, and satisfies the standards of discourse in polite society. Posts which fail to satisfy that standard risk being deleted.

Many years,

Neil

Good Morning Neil!

Yes, you are correct. I assumed it was you based on the fact I you happened to be online during the time it was removed (according to the online box). I simply used my engineering skills to deduct 1 + 1 = 2 and as it is, I accused the wrong person.

Please accept my apologies.

Warmest regards,
Matthew

Blessings to all during this wonderous time of year!

Please keep the discussion centered around Father David's book. Deviation of the topic will result in possible editing of the post. I also ask that only those who possess the book comment. This will assist with the flow of the thread.

Thank you.

In Christ,

Michael B.

Fr. Petras' book again touches on liturgical change in closing his section on Antiphons on page 60:

"Whenever a modification is made in the Liturgy, not everyone will agree with it, for our prayer is too close to the center of our faith and to our relationship with God. What is more important, though, is that our Liturgy is the act of a community under the leadership of our bishops. We are not seeking our own will, but to acknowledge the presence of God together in the Body of Christ that is the Church."

I hope his book helps prepare many people for what may be coming.

Jim,

How is it that, in providing an incorrect translation of the Creed (on an issue which Rome has made its mind known), they are not seeking their own will?

lm

The change in the Creed is not directed to the common good but rather special interest groups and it is theologically wrong:



III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

B. In the Creed... the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text "For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

from: Vatican document 2002 sets, Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal.

By our new translation of the Creed, we isolate ourselves from the Roman Church, fellow Byzantine Catholics and sound Orthodoxy.

Not to mention the omission of the verses of the antiphons, the litanies between the antiphons, and various other litanies.

No one has ever given an explanation of the _need_ for the changes. We are told we must follow, because bishops are mandating this change, and we should be obedient. But we are never told why they are mandating the changes. Questions get silence as a response. It is clericalism in the extreme.

I had hoped Fr. David's book would provide these reasons, but from what I have read here, it does not.

[/quote]

B. In the Creed... the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text "For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

[/quote]

It is not my intention to advocate for the change in the Creed, but in all fairness to those who do advocate for inclusive language, I think this argument has problems of its own. If we claim that stating "For us and for our salvation" instead of "For us men and for our salvation" could imply that the "us" refers only to those individuals present at any particular DL, then we must also consider the possibility that in praying "in peace let us pray to the Lord" we are faced with the same problem.
In peace,
Ryan

I don't think it's a problem because in fact it is a request of those then present and then praying that they pray "in peace."

In the Creed, however, the reference to salvation of men is without respect to time, place, rank, position, sex, age etc.

Perhaps there is no rational account. So we may be asking for the impossible. Or perhaps we are too Western in our point of view in demanding "a faith seeking understanding."

The bishops are seeking their own will. They reject the community of all of the Greek Catholic / Orthodox bishops and go their own way.

I obtained a copy of this book through a friend about two months ago. It was practically unreadable for me. I tried to skim it. I could not even "plow" through it. I must agree with Fr Anthony's review.

I am so happy that I did not pay for this book!

R

I was also given this book by a friend and am very glad I saved the $10.

now i don't mean to be rude (and this is sort of old, but it is worth saying)

If you are defending the book factually, there is no personal polemic involved. You are talking about what is fact.

That is what I believe is trying to be established here.

So why not answer the questions raised?

I'm new here and not sure where this should go. I'm hoping Father David or someone who is involved in liturgical catechesis can answer this question. I've been away from the Ruthenian Church for a few years and have watched the discussions on the new Divine Liturgy text.

A few months ago, I was able to visit my old parish (I moved to another state a few years back), and I saw Father David's book "Time For the Lord to Act" in the parish bookstore. I thumbed through it looking for an explanation of the significance of the Proskomedia and I didn't see anything in it about that.

This has been something that has concerned me for a couple of years now. Since I'm away from my old parish, the only Divine Liturgy I can attend is at 3 different Orthodox parishes that are in my area. For Communion, I go to a Roman Rite parish but I try to attend Divine Liturgy at least once a month at these Orthodox parishes. Of course, there are some similiarities and some differences between what I experienced at my home Byzantine parish and these Orthodox parishes. The one thing that has particularly struck me is the difference in how we Byzantines view the Proskomedia and how our use of the prosphora loaf. All the Orthodox parishes I've visited so far actually follow the liturgical directions for cutting the prosphora loaf during the Proskomedia. I've discussed this with a couple of Orthodox priests now and the reactions I got when I mentioned our practice of pre-cut pieces instead of using a whole Lamb was, well, not too approving. This has prompted me to study this whole issue and, to be honest, I am surprised this practice has arisen in our churches. What's the point in pretending to cut up the prosphora during the Proskomedia service when it's already been done? Why not just follow the service as it's written? I applaud the return of authentic tradition to our Church (infant communion, Creed in its original form, etc.), but this is one thing that seems to have escaped our attention.

Is there a move to teach the authentic practice of the Proskomedia to our people? This is why I found the lack of mention of the Proskomedia in "Time For the Lord to Act" troubling. Wouldn't this have been a great opportunity to provide catechesis as to the meaning of the Proskomedia?

Слава Ісусу Христу!

MichaelRahoza, welcome.

Very observant. As you moved from the review allow me to recollect. Over three decades ago when Patriarch Josyf (Cardinal Slipyj) visited the Pittsburgh community he was asked his first impression. He said it was like the Carpathians. He was then asked what impressed him about the United States. He said the lack of communion bread (prosphora).

Catechesis is a natural when teaching the communion of saints. I use to give each student a stamped prosphora and a plastic knife and we cut the proskomedia together. I could never discern which was more popular; playing priest or having more then a cube or two of “Bozheu” (God’s) bread to eat.

Don’t overlook the ethnic aspect in some domestic (kitchen / home) churches. On the eve of the Nativity and / or Saint Basil and / or Jordan prosphora is broken and distributed to all dipped in honey accompanying a garlic clove. This begins the Holy Supper at the first star reminding us to accept whatever God sends in life, the sweet along with the bitter. Some families as the mother slices the blessed sausage, meats and dairy from their paschal baskets the dad or son cuts the shrouded pascha bread. It is pierced with a knife then segmented as the Poskomedia prescribes. Instead of cubed the segments are sliced recalling the communion of saints, deceased family members, those to join in the breakfast and those absent like the relatives in the motherland even if we don't know them. Bard Shevchenko would add those yet to come in a cosmic union. We do not reserve church only for Sunday mornings or temples as WE are a royal priesthood.

To be fair to Father David, he has written a sharp denunciation of the practice of using "pre-cut" prosphora, let alone "pre-dried" prosphora.

One reason for the lacuna you mention - and you are right - by way of lack of much explanation of the Prothesis (aka Proskomedia) is the lack of an accessible scholarly study of that part of the service. I once asked Father Archimandrite Robert Taft what he suggests - and he responded with a reference to a book in German, which I, alas, do not speak.

You might try Bishop Basil's pamphlet "Holy Things to the Holy", which I think devotes some attention to the Prothesis.

Meanwhile, welcome to our happy forum. "Michael Rahoza" - now there's an auspicious name!

Fr. Serge