Glory to Jesus Christ!

The "inclusive language" issue aside, there appears to me to be basically two camps surrounding the discussions of the new translation of the Liturgy: The Fr. Petras perspective ("Revisonism") and those who call for a more faithful adherence to the Ruthenaian Recension ("Recensionism.") For me this points all the more to the crucial need for a comprehensive renewal in our Church, a true return to our sense of Mission, Vision and a Strategic plan. Unless there is a "soil" into which to drop any translation of the liturgy or any adherence to a recension, I do not not think that the desired effect will be achieved. In fact it could backfire. Proper prayer and worship as so many have correctly been saying, is indeed vital to renewal. We must be praying in a way that is honest to our particular liturgical tradition.

However, "proper" prayer and worship is going to have to mean more than just the words, the translation whether it be the Recension in all its pristine form or the organic development of it that Fr. David speaks about.

Take for example a debate over whether to take the Anaphora aloud. To me this debate will be determined by "how" it is taken out loud. We can argue scholastically on one hand that the Anaphora should not be taken aloud. But if it is taken aloud and it inspires the worshippers then you have a determination that goes beyond who has the correct rubric, or exact translation of the Greek. But this brings into the picture the personal conviction of the celebrant of the words that are being prayed as well as the openness of the congregation to the depth of what they are hearing. This openness in turn is dependent upon what the congregation has been taught on other levels about their liturgical, spiritual heritage. In turn our congregations cannot be adequately taught unless their experience is enriched and made more tangible by correctly designed worship edifices, a more "Charismatic," Christ-centered sense of community and worship, stewardship and evangelization. This is a call for an integrated Church, not just a translation here or a rubric there with nothing else changing. Included in this would be the whole world of the "Domestic Church." As one priest said to me, "Do they mean to tell me that suddenly my parish is going to grow because we are now being mandated to say,'whom God loves,' instead of 'God loving bishop!?'

Of course, such things are not going to suddenly and dramatically change the health and evangelical power of a parish that has been laboring under spritual constipation for years. HOWEVER, the effectiveness of the "correct" words or rubrics may be increased if they are set in the context of a comprehensive liturgical renewal of our Church.

By "liturigical" renewal I am refering to the rediscovery and committment through vision and plan of an entire liturgical "ethos." The Schmemanns, Tafts, and Petras's of the Church have long been teaching us that "Liturgy is Life." Well then why don't we embrace it that way? This goes far, far beyond rubric and translation yet at the same time incorporates rubric and translation but within a context that will make rubric and translation effective,(something like a fish is to water. Our Church is mandating the fish but into waters that are polluted and shallow. This will not do justice to the fish.)

Surprising as it may seem, it has been my experience that congregations actually do not care how long the "Mass" is when the "Mass" they are worshipping is part of their TOTAL EXPERIENCE of a Liturgical ethos. Let's develop the Liturgical ethos.

Why not take the same type of effort, investment and commitment that we expended for the new translation and dedicate investments toward a comprehensive renewal? A new translation may not make sense to the rank and file because nothing else of their experience of Church is changing.
There has been no call to our Church to step up to the "New Evangelization." As a pastor I am concerned that the "new music" and the "new liturgy" will be received with a "why are they changing things?" reaction from the rank and file. It could run the risk of seeming topical, artificial and unnecessary simply because nothing else is changing in their same-old,same-old, complacent,predictable and dying experience of Church.

As explosive as the new translation issue has been, we are nonetheless still hovering within the safer zones of rubrics and translation. Is this because we are afraid to enter into the real renewal that is needed? We all know that resources need to be completely reassessed and new and creative ways to invest are called for. "Chapels of convenience" and stretching clergy thin must give way to authentic, dynamic, evangelical parishes and missions. They may become fewer in number (temporarily) but they will be mightier and more capable of evangelizing.

Doors are starting to open big time in TV and radio for the Eatern Churches. But will we invest resources and step through these doors?
Or will we adopt the "safe" and lethal excuse,
"We don't have money for this." The fact is we WILL have money for more fruitful efforts like meida if we have a vision of what would truly yield for us and if we in turn commit to a plan to realize that vision.

Our religious "orders" are dying out. Could this actually be seen not as a negative but as a call for us to move beyond the "hyphenated" models (Byzantine-Benedictine, etc.)and come into our own as more authentic Eastern monastics? The hyphenated models may have been good for a time. But a "hypenated" model was saying that we weren't really capable of doing it on our own, that we have to "piggyback" on to the Romans who are the "real" Church anyway. Is this what we really believe about ourselves and our rich spiritual heritage? Are not the Romans themselves calling us beyond this for the good of the whole Church?

I believe unless we begin asking AND pursuing the answers to questions such as these, any type of
"new translation" or rubrics may not produce the desired effect. I want to be clear in this post: My point here is not for or against the new translation. It is a call to make rubrics and translations part of what I assume these efforts actually seek to be---living the Liturgy.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.

God bless you, Fr. Thomas,

I have mentioned this phenomenon a long time ago as the Mommy-May-I syndrome; "Mommy" meaning Rome. At least this is what many of us believe. But is this reality or just an inside-the-box convention of whom we have become? Rubrics and translations are the only things that we believe or maybe Rome will allow. Our canon law defines a "rite" as having at least four unique characteristics: theology, liturgy, spirituality, and discipline. We have become experts in liturgical tradition, but still draw false dicotomies between "more Eastern" and "less Eastern" Catholics. Are we really just an 'adjective' church tradition or one that lives and breathes Eastern-ness internally without first having to draw distinctions between us and them or between the more Eastern and less Eastern. We are our worse enemies; we set up false distinctions and then debate to the death.

Lets get back to basics and see with Byzantine eyes. The Gospel will live with or without us.

Joe Thur

Fr. Thomas, your words delve into the very heart of what I feel is the basis for many discussions on this forum. I hear them in much the same way the message was delivered at the recent Catechist Workshop. The concept of “Living the Liturgy” or “Enlivening the Liturgy” is a major issue. The people and their participation is the Liturgy.

In both Fr. Petras’ and Prof. Thompson’s presentations, a key topic brought up was that the Liturgy is not just the responses of the congregation. It is necessary that the people partake in all relationships of the Liturgy. These include the exchanges between priest/deacon, priest/cantor, deacon/congregation, and priest/congregation. Therefore it is not only the act of praising in song that brings the Liturgy to life within us. One must be in tune with their ability and attitude towards the times of silent participation, with an awareness of their posture and openness of their heart to all exchanges during the Liturgy. Paraphrasing, we should not turn off our ears because nothing is coming out of our mouths. Can one truly be partaking of the Liturgy if one is not absorbing the priest’s prayers, the Epistle, the Gospel, or the Homily? Let us concentrate more on the message of the “Word” rather than a particular word such as man, us or mankind.

If this statement were true, why is the Russian Orthodox Church succeeding in its mission efforts, and the Roman Catholic Church faltering? The church does not need another translation, it needs to enforce the one it has.

If this statement were true, why is the Russian Orthodox Church succeeding in its mission efforts, and the Roman Catholic Church faltering? The church does not need another translation, it needs to enforce the one it has. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I doubt that either is a result of the English language.

Certainly not the language, but perhpas all the other "stuff," like knowing who they truly are and sticking with tradition, instead of making it up along the way. Liturgy is something that transcends time and location. It is awe inspiring to pray a Liturgy, word for word, that has been prayed the same way centuries before. The Russian church is expanding because it is doing the "old" things better. They have not trivilized their inheritance, squandering their energies on the wrong things.

Because Liturgy gives expression to a community, the handing on of tradition needs to include a dignified translation. What will people think when they hear "humankind" versus "mankind"? They will bear witness to the fact that the church has begun to engage popular culture, and these contrived intrepretations may, perhaps, bring about an outcry for more fundamental liturgical stylings.

From the date of promuglation, your Liturgy, that was once ageless, now becomes dated.

AMEN!!!

I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when petitions like '...an angel of peace and faithful guide and guardian ....' has been stripped out of the Liturgy.

I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when only one antiphon verse is allowed and causes the people to not hear more for example on feast days and miss some of the explanation of the feast day.

I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when the little litanies are stripped out of the liturgy.

I'm not partaking of complete Eastern sprituality when Matins and Vespers are not offered at 80%-90% of our parishes. (Quasi Vespers with Liturgy doesn't count).

I am not partaking of complete Eastern sprituality when pews are in the way and preclude people from doing proper prostrations during the Great Fast. Furthermore, since it is a lost practice, why aren't clergy instructing and educating people on this practice?

Quote:

Let us concentrate more on the message of the “Word” rather than a particular word such as man, us or mankind.

We wouldn't be even talking about this if 'PETRASianism' weren't trying to jam it down our throats with this New Liturgy.


I agree that our focus should be on evangelizing and growing our churches. Good time and energy is being wasted on this New Liturgy.

But shouldn't we be bringing new people into churches that embrace our Eastern Christianity and Traditions and not some new modern hybrid that is the flavor of the month.

The Litrugy is our foundation. Let's make it strong and Traditional and then build on it.


Long live RECENSIONianism!

Monomakh

I thank Father Thomas for his dedication to the Church and for his work in evangelizing.

I agree with him on many of his points and have a different take on some of them.

On this point Father Thomas and I agree totally. The further point here I would insist on (yes, I sound like a broken record) is that liturgical prayer is the foundation upon which everything else is built upon. We cannot have a correct sense of Mission, Vision and all the rest without good Liturgy. The entire life of a parish flows from the celebration of the Liturgy. A parish that has a poor liturgical life can have all the nice programs and classes for evangelism and have everyone one of them fail if the liturgical worship is not good.

Exactly! When the apostles asked the Lord how they should pray he taught them: “Our Father, who art in heaven.” The apostles commanded the faithful in the Didache to pray this prayer at least 3 times a day. They were wise in doing this because not only is the Lord’s Prayer good prayer, it is also a method or model of prayer. Likewise our Ruthenian recension is a masterpiece of prayer, one which we do not know as a Church because we have neglected it for so long. The texts and rubrics of our recension are prayer as well as a method and model of prayer that lead us to “’proper’ prayer and worship.” They don’t need to be overhauled to the taste of some in the early 21st century. They need to be prayed in full to form us as a praying Church.

Something that is forced cannot be considered organic.

Numerous posters have pointed out that the Byzantine Church has talked about praying the Anaphora out loud for almost a thousand years. The Church has soundly rejected this idea. We even have Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commenting on the multiple texts for the Anaphora (now appearing in the Roman Church tailored for many occasions) reflecting on the possibility that “silence… especially, might constitute communion before God.”

It might be that someday this will be an organic development, but no one can consider it such in the Byzantine Church.

No, the way forward here is liberty. Organic development can take place only where there is liberty. Our liturgical books offer liberty on this issue. Development must not be forced. Those who force development cannot claim that it is organic. The debate is most certainly not about how the Anaphora should be taken out loud. The debate is whether the Holy Spirit will be free to lead or whether He shall be stifled into one position or another.

Because we are afraid of the power of Christ in our lives.

Because we are afraid of the power of Christ in our Church.

A call to an active effort to evangelize is premature in a Church were the Liturgy is often poor, and where the people are afraid to pray what the Lord has given them as he has given it to them. Programs might get them in the door. Good liturgical prayer is what gets them to stay. Good Liturgy is what feeds the parish as it grows in Christ.

I’m not sure what Father Thomas is suggesting here. Can he please clarify what he means about real renewal? For me and for many in our Church real renewal is praying our official tradition, allowing the Lord to form us and our Church. Changes will come someday, and will come as a whole to the entire Byzantine Church. I am hoping here that Father Thomas’ idea of entering into the unsafe zones does not involve more liturgical change but rather a change that is nothing less that a radical rededication of our lives and our Church to the Lord Jesus Christ!

I see real renewal in parishes that take Liturgy seriously. I see real renewal and real growth in parishes that are attempting to pray our liturgical tradition.

Admin / John

As one of his parishoners, I think I'll try. I know pretty much for sure Father Tom means the latter of your ideas (rededicating our lives to Christ, I mean). He is one of the best men I know, so I'm pretty sure in my judgement.

When I received my first assignment as full-time senior pastor of a Church many years ago that particular congregation had been in a downward spiral for several years. I analyzed the problems they faced and they boiled down to three. In a general meeting of the congregation I ponted to the three problems and told the congregation that the way out of our dilemma is to grab hold of one of the issues and unravel it. In theory it didn't matter which we tackled first because each controlled the other.

In other words, in theory, it did not matter for our purposes whether the chicken or the egg came first we had to figure out which one we were going to develop first and then go after it. Providence would take care of the rest.

Eastern Catholicism has been in a downward spiral for some time. Specifically the BC Church has been in serious decline for some time. We know that pastors are stretched beyond reasonable limits. We know that for some reason many don't wish to evangelize. We've convinced ourselves that going to meetings actually addresses a problem. We debate over liturgy and have a majority of our temples still not looking or feeling like Eastern temples. We pour money into a seminary when we have almost no new vocations. I suppose if we wanted to really make ourselves sick we could make a nearly endless list of problems that ought to paralyze us and probably have.

Can anyone deny that we have "Analysis Paralysis" as several wits have noticed when looking at many an organization? We've become so afraid to act that the fear of acting has become perhaps the central road block to our Church.

So we continue to tinker around the edges and really don't address anything.

In my situation of many years ago I took my role as leader of the congregation seriously. I said here are the three issues that must be addressed. Each is interrelated so we can unravel this damning cycle by attacking one of them with a fury not seen heretofore. We prayed hard before setting off but we set off without delay. We grew, the ratio of women to men which had been 4:1 slowly became 2:1. Our Sunday School had only one teacher before the first fall we had 2 teachers for every class. Evangelization became central, then worship renewal, then on and on until we had a whole set of new problems. Where do we put the people? How do we modernize our building? Who will keep track of all of the funds coming in? Which missionary endeavors do we support?

This isn't anything new to Father Loya. He's done the same things and much more with what God has given him. He knows who the man on point is in the local Church and he has not shrunk from that responsibility.

Did I make some mistakes along the way? You betcha. Every good pastor knows that he will make what is considered later to be mistakes but they won't let that knowledge keep him from action.

Our efforts over the summer to organize a conference on the liturgy was not simply to give a voice to people about the liturgy. Our efforts were designed to flush out the leadership so that they would give us the guidance so desparately needed.

Who knows why that effort did not work? There was no real danger in it, at least not compared with continued inaction. But it did not work. I frankly don't know what will work, but leaders don't give up. If A doesn't get the desired result then the leder goes to B and then to 24 more options and then moves to double letter options and then to numbers until something is found that does work.

Leaders know this. Father Loya knows this.

So, which came first the Chicken or the Egg? I think we know that the chicken did but then before either came God who actually did something.

Will our bishops stand before us and analyze the issues, sort out which one he and the Church will tackle first, and give us the charge to go after it? We will see.

CDL

Boyarina has it right. The proposed reform is already dated even before it is fully enacted. The inclusive language, the prayers out loud and all the other reforms are right from the worst of the 1960s and 1970s post-Vatican II reforms in the RCC. As they are being forced down our throats the Romans are abandoning them and returning back to their own traditions.

Father Thomas has coined an excellent phrase: The Petras Recension vs. the Ruthenian Recension.

LORD HAVE MERCY.

JD,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Inclusive language didn't become a problem in the Latin Church in the US until the revision of the NAB. It is still not a part of their official liturgical texts. They are certainly not going back to reciting the Anaphora silently. The only thing they are correcting right is dumbed down translation.

Are you able to distinguish between what the Council called for, what was officially promulgated and what some priests did of their own volition?

Are you able to realize that the right thing is the right thing whether Latins correct it first or we do? We baptize by immersion, it is the better practice, and the Latins have adopted it. The Anaphora aloud is the better practice and we are adopting that. I don't want to continue a less beneficial practice simply because the Orthodox haven't corrected it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The present Latin Mass regulations permit the recitation of the Anaphora aloud, but do not require it.

Fr Serge