How about we actually do something about what we're having so much trouble with? How about we draft up a letter to Rome itself, circulate it amongst the willing parishes, get the signatures, and send it off?

Don't get me wrong, what's going on here is great and all, but it's only on the internet so far. Let's make this real!

Peace of Christ,
Nathan Augustine

IF anything were to be done immediately, like a letter and systematic series of concerns, it should be sent first to our own hierarchs with copies going to appropriate curial offices. Then take the next step depending on the response of the Byzantine bishops.

It appears however that real interest lies in planning and holding a conference at a later date to discuss liturgy, in general, or so it seems. I guess there will be panels of experts and book-sale stalls and the like.

Eli

I have written to our bishops but only responses have been a mere an acknowledgment of receipt of the letter.

Has anyone written letters to our bishops or to Rome and received any meaningful responses?

Elitoft, when your house is burning you don't go to the person who set it on fire and ask them to put it out. You go to the firefighters. Same thing here, the bishops are the problem, so you go to someone higher than them. Since every single Ruthenian Bishop in America is guilty you go to their superiors. What a coincidence, their superiors are in Rome! Therefore a letter to Rome needs to be written up, and signed by as many people as possible.

Nathan, I would like to know, sincerely, where and from whom are you getting this idea?

Dear djs,

Who do you think is responsible?

Nick

Responsible for what, Nick?

Common sense, SOMEONE has to have approved this Liturgy, and who else but the bishops? A priest can't approve the new Liturgy, so I can't go blame any priests for its approval.

Nathan,

God bless you for your efforts!

I think you are correct. If our bishops were listening our priests would not have asked Father Keleher to do a scholarly review of the new translation.

I think our bishops and the priests on the liturgical commission are intelligent and smart. They just don’t know our tradition well enough to understand it.

Blessed Theodore

Djs,

Did I loose the train of thought?

Nathan said that the bishops were responsible for the revised Liturgy. "The bishops are the problem".

You asked him where he got that idea.... suggesting that the bishops are not responsible for the revised Liturgy.

So, I'm asking, if you don't think that the bishops are reaponsible, who is responsible?

Nick

Dear Nicholas,

We are not fighting fires here.

We are petitioning our Church for an audience, for a hearing. We need to have a specific action plan that outlines what we seek and how we plan to achieve that goal.

There are canons that do not allow one bishop to interfere in the jurisdiction of another, so there are canonical protocols for taking any action such as the one suggested here.

If you DON'T begin with the Byzantine Metropolia, Rome is going to simply ignore anything sent its way, or, by law, send any letter or petition back to Metropolitan Basil. Do you really think Rome acts contrary to her bishops? Do you think all those Vatican II documents are full of empty words? How about the Code of Canons? There are reasons and regulations for everything in the Church. Abide by them or get lost in the paper shuffle, or rightfully ignored.

One follows the chain of command. You didn't know this?

Eli

Dear Eli,

You're absolutely right, of course.

I wrote to the Archbishop. He didn't answer or even acknowledge my letter. So, I tried that.

If the Archbishop had written back (or even sent a form letter like Congressman do) thanking me for my letter, and saying something, anything....

If he had written a letter which said, "I'm the Archbishop, and I can revise the Liturgy, and I'm gonna revise the Liturgy, just get over it." ...then, I think I would know what to do.

Whatyado when the Archbishop doesn't even answer?

Nick

Thanks Nathan. Now, what is it that you claim they are guilty of?

Nick, I simply wasn't sure whether you were asking about responsibility for setting the house on fire, or for planting and nurturing Nathan's idea that the house has been set on fire, by his bishops.

Yes, that is why I made this post. I want a plan of action made.

Fine, there will be two letters then. One to the Bishops, and when they ignore us we will write one to Rome. Whatever it takes to get rid of this problem is what I'd like to see.

Of course I know this. I also know that people have written and have gotten nothing back. The chain of command has already been addressed, the next rung needs to be hit. Now I'm all for trying to start at the bottom again if it's PRODUCTIVE.

They are guilty of coming up with a draft that is heretical and setting up to approve it. It's the equivalent of them saying they want to approve fantasy icons.

DJS, with all due respect are you thinking that I do not know how to think for myself, or that I am some easily brain-washed child? I will admit that I do not know everything, but I do sometimes know a heresy when I see it. I was not always against the new liturgy, ask any of the teenagers who verbally came after me and they will tell you that I for a very long time supported the bishops, and asked for respect because of their office. However, if you try to change the intent of the words of the Liturgy you are messing around with dogma, warping it beyond what it naturally should be. That's all that heresy is, a warping of doctrine, and as far as I can tell the bishops are condoning it. There is no good in writing to them, because they will not respond.

The only way that I know of is to make enough noise at Rome to force a reaction, since reason will not work as far as I'm aware. Sometimes you need to break down somebody else's door (i.e. Rome's) to get the water to put out the fire that's in your house.


If I am wrong, how am I wrong? I want to see right done in the end, not evil.

Dear Nathan,

Who has accused the new draft of being heretical? I'm as critical of it as anyone, but I wouldn't go that far. Heresy is just about the worst thing you can accuse someone of. What, in the new draft, is a denial of the faith? What teaches anything contrary to the faith?

I admire the zeal, but think you should pull back and rethink if you really want to say what you just said. And, if you did conclude that there was heresy in the new liturgy (heresy!), the proper thing to do would be to ask your pastor about it, and then go to Bishop John.

One of the problems with the internet, and with this board in particular (since it limits the time you can edit something) is that, once you press "add reply", it's out there. I've regretted many times that I didn't take some time before posting. What's it that James says about the tongue?

Best wishes,
P-A

Nathan,

I have to agree with P-A and a few others here that are expressing their concern. Heresy in itself is that the views and teachings expressed are contrary to the doctrines of the faith and the canons of the Church.

While this may be your view that the implimentation of the Revised Liturgy may be harmful to the faithful of the Eparchy spiritually, any accusation should be well documented as to where it deviates from the teachings, doctrines, and canons of the Church for it to be deemed "heretical". By levelling such a serious accusation, you are accusing in this case the hierarchy to be outside the Church in their teachings and beliefs. I really think that before you go any further with this you carefully explore what you are about accuse the hierarchy and even clergy of. A false accusation may undermine any efforts you make now and in the future.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Met. Basil is under no obligation to reply to you. That is why he does not. You are one man expressing one point of view. What do you know of the long arduous hours spent on that translation? And up you pop with some gripe that isn't even on his radar, or is contrary to something that was long since fought over and either won or lost.

What makes you think any bishop in the Catholic Church will engage you in serious discussion over something that he has been already decided by experts?

What Catholic bishop will stand up and answer hard questions from the laity except under duress? It's just not done in this Church.

There are a few I will grant you, and they are good men and will speak directly to you by phone, give you time on their calendar, commiserate with you when on pastoral visitations, but discuss the order of the day in the Church, particularly when you are going to tell THEM what to do? No.

So the best you can expect from a bishop, unless the problem has immediate and direct bearing on your personal spiritual life in the Church, and you have exhausted all other legitimate options, is to know that somebody might have read your letters and taken note, before they threw them out or filed them deep.

To do what most of the dissenters want to do on this list is going to take a concerted and coordinated effort. Which means it will start here or it will start at some conference somewhere between meals, speeches and book sales.

Frankly, from what I've seen here in a week, I don't think that Metropolitan Basil should be loosing any sleep over the laity and the liturgy.

Pretty poor showing and I don't mean that to be nasty. I am disappointed. I think some of the concerns are truly legitimate but there's more interest in carping and pressing favored issues, real or imagined.

There's no will to work together, and no real leadership role emerging and that is what is most surprising because there are some strong voices here but no offer to begin anything systematic. And it would take systematic effort on the part of clergy and laity to even get to the point where one could present a unified case for any of the legitimate concerns expressed here, much less advance convincing arguments that would change anything.

Looks a lot like trying to herd cats. I haven't lost interest entirely but I stopped reading most of the postings.

Eli

Eli,

God works in mysterious ways. I hope that something will be a catalyst to renew our Church and give us a vision of evangelization. I love our Church and I hope we will spread its message with considerably more vigour than during the last two decades. Perhaps the new translation in one way or another will yet be a spark for new life.

No matter what, I love our Church.

CDL

Dear Nathan,

We all share the characteristic of not knowing everything; and improving our critical thinking is a lifetime's work. My question to you was not directed at these issues, it was, sincerely, aimed at understanding what streams of information led you to develop your perspectives on the arsonist bishops - in particular, how much of it might have come from the rhetoric here.

djs,

Now now. The rhetoric may be "inflammatory" but it does make a point. Perhaps before our young friend answers your question about arson what do you think has caused the 2/3 decline in membership? I suppose one might say it is because people die off, or move away, or youth get married to non BCs, etc. All this is true but it really doesn't answer the question. Other Churches and organizations face the same situations and many of them grow anyway. So, why haven't we?

BTW I don't think it has much of anything to do with translations old or new.

CDL

djs,

perhaps by 'rhetoric' you mean posts by Father David who has given reasons for the new liturgy such as explaining that translations needed to be cleaned up:

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003152;p=3#000042

but conveniently left out using the word 'orthodox' for 'orthodoxis' in our translation, even though the Melkites, Romanian Greek Catholics, and Ukrainian Greek Catholics have accepted it.

I wonder when we as a church will get over our negative animus for this word?

Dan,

The fact is we don't know how many we have lost. Certainly we have lost in double digits but 2/3 may or may not be correct. We simply cannot trust the figures of the 50's-80's. To put this into perspective, the OCA use to claim 1,000,000 at least in one publication on denominations.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question17.html
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/tab1b.pdf
http://www.ocanews.org/news/GoodNewsBadNews51506.html
http://www.ocanews.org/news/Hopkoletter319.html

Both an independent researcher and Fr. Thomas Hopko report that membership is really about 30,000.

And if you notice, many of the other problems related by Fr. Thomas are our own. Same problems, same decline, and all with no interference from Rome, the ability to ordain married men, and an unrevised Liturgy. That certainly takes the wind out of the arguement that if only we are true to our Eastern tradition we will grow. (Not that we shouldn't but it is no guarantee we will grow) The truth is Eastern Christianity, despite some high profile defections from the Evangelical and Episcopal Churches, is not growing in America.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dan, even when not inflammatory, it is often careless. While direct statements that something or another in the translation "is heretical" have been rare, the comment that some item or another "could be seen as heretical" has been made numerous times. Did such comments, however tendentious, misinform the thinking of Nathan and others? I am concerned when a young man has had a wedge driven between him and his bishop.
First let me take Van Nuys as a case in point. When I was attending St. Macrina in San Mateo, the list of official parishioners included every canonical BC for that church was closer than any other BC church. But no one was making the drive from Eureka or Tahoe to weekly services. And many may have decided to go elsewhere. If one were instead to consider, for example, who picks up envelopes, then the number is vastly different. And that - as has been discussed countless times on this forum - is what makes the drop from 1990 to 2000 look so steep. It is as artificial as the overnight drop of OCA numbers from one million to 30,000 remarked upon this year at OCAnews. Given the artificial nature of the the sharp drop, and the fact that since then the rate of loss is far, far less precipitous, why the fixation on this 2/3 since 1990?

I've stipulated before that actual numbers, while not nearly so dire, are still nothing to be relaxed about. But they are comprehensible for the reasons that you state. I come from Cambria county, PA. We have numerous parishes there in little coal towns that are dying. Not just the parishes, but the little towns themselves. Most of the children move away, often to the South or West, often to places far from any BC parish. And often to places where the numbers of other Eastern Catholics are so small that it is dificult to make a start.

On the other hand, we have been working. I mentioned to you before that the 20 parishes and several missions/outreach in Van Nuys represent apart of our efforts to adjust and serve the rediaspora. And the survival and growth of these newer parishes certainly depends in a new way - unlike in the old country, or the old, old country - on reaching out to the broader community. This has necessarily changed us from being - for nearly a millenium - an ethnic church, to being one in which evagelization is vital. And all of these remarks apply to most everything that we've done south of the Mason-Dixon line.

As for the old country - can those parishes also be kept vital and growing through evangelization? Well, the fraction of unchurched people in Cambria county is less that 5%. And I suspect in the small towns it's close to 0. It is a heartbreak, but these churches likely will be gone soon. I am not sure whose fault that is.

Monomakh: Go back to the archives. While it was not included in the list you linked to, this issue has been discussed numerous times.

You do have a way of fighting fire with fire.

Frankly one is not necessarily tendentious to say that a word or a phrase in context distorts or obscures or obliterates orthodox theology. In fact that is what we all are supposed to be aware of in the Church, even the laity is charged with a certain obligation to exercise prudential judgment and discernment. The exercise of that charge as members of the Body is hardly an attack upon any one person at all, but on an idea or the presentation of an idea.

Furthermore one may surely exercise a prudential judgment and discernment about the presentation of an idea without inherently accusing the author of the idea or the generator of the idea of any purposeful act, or act in malicious awareness.

So your ever constant concern here to protect the episcopate, and the one raised in that ordinal state, has stretched a bit far here and you are cutting off the ordinary rights and obligations of the laity in the process, or at least suggesting that their exercise will do a great evil by what driving a wedge between a young man and his bishop.

There are many bishops in this country where only a properly placed wedge could separate him from his young men. In some cases there have been far too few wedges so fortuitously placed.

Not all behaviors of all bishops are deserving of such staunch and boundless defense as you offer here on every possible occasion, whether it makes real sense or not.

Eli

Deacon Lance and djs,

For economy's sake I'll address you both at once. Nathan Hicks is a fine and dedicated young man. I don't think we need to worry about driving irreparable wedges. I'm not as concerned about the liturgy as he is but am more concerned that we crush a young person's enthusiasm than anything else. While I find the concern over the translation sometimes a bit strained, what do I know. I read Greek...a little. I'm almost totally oblivious of Old Slovanic. If this issue of translation is important enough to get the entire archeparchy together at a conference to discuss evangelization and growth I'm all for it. If it is another issue that finally brings us together I'm all for that. I know that involvement is one of the key elements to energizing our vision. So, I pray that it happens.

I'm thankful for the studies about the truer stats than what we have hitherto had. I've contended for months (maybe years) on this very forum that stats are an important part of the evangelization picture. I'm very glad to see some more solid stats even if they are only about the Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

To reiterate, I don't know if married priests or liturgical translations or pews or iconostasis or something else holds the key to our growth. I think rather anyone of them or all together may be a catalyst. What I do think is essential is that we gahter together and are challenged together with a vision.

I pray that our shepherds call such a gathering.

CDL

Elitoft wrote:
Well, I think a wedge is there. I have asked, to avoid presuming, where it comes from.

Is the concern about how words might contribute baseless? How about doing a search to find where the ideas of "heretical" and could-be-considered "heretical" have been raised in the discussion of the revised liturgy, then let's talk about whether such remarks are just an ordinary exercise of rights, or just poor showing and potentially bad example.

Of course, these may discussions may not have informed Nathan's ideas at all. But the fact that they might makes me think it worthwhile to ask. I think it worthwhile for people to understand.

I don't think I've objected to such discussions, and in fact, I welcome them, and IIRC, endorsed them in a previous post to you. There is a huge difference, as P-A has noted, however, in criticizing a phrase for arguably obscuring theology, versus for introducing heresy - or, for that matter, "evil". And the latter kinds of criticisms have, in fact, been made here. And those, I think, should be objected to - just as you have objected to certain uncharitable, gossipy posts.

Based on continued consideration, you and I seem to differ in this manner.

You seem to want to point to the comments that stand out as inappropriate, drag those less than useful comments out one more time, maybe two or three more times, to review them and judge them to be lacking, and to repeat your concerns over and over again.

I seem to be thinking that your "solution" is a real waste of time and wish that we all could focus on those things which have merit because this entire discussion in its various current manifestations is looking more and more like a three ring circus.

As I said earlier there is nothing truly effectual here yet to cause any of our bishops to loose any sleep.

The only real way to make useless or potentially harmful banter and sniping go away is to ignore what is there and not add to it as I am doing her.

I also differ from you in terms of having much greater confidence in our bishops to take very good care of themselves, and our laity to be able to separate wheat from chaff.

Eli

You are probably right on all counts, Elitoft. At least, I certainly hope that you are. More in PM.

djs,

I think there's alot of heat but not much light on the this issue of the new translation. Nevertheless, it may be for the good. It at least lets the bishops know that we would very much like some communication prior to promulgation and a chance to have some input on prayers that are supposed to belong to the people.

I don't think it has helped that some Church closings have taken place under less than desirable conditions nor does it help that feminism has played havoc with the RCs and we really don't wish that upon ourselves.

If the bishops would just have a conference and show us the liturgy and let us comment on it and have the comments taken seriously before it is promulgated not only would the problem evaporate but I believe the people would be energized for God's glory.

CDL

A conference is a good idea that will never happen. Loyalists to our Ruthenian tradition and the Vatican directives posting here have been called eveything from stupid to disobedient. The reformers have successfully labeled all disagreement as hurtful, personal attack. How sad for our little church.

Are conferences that difficult to organize? Can't somebody run with the idea, and make it happen?

Anybody here, with experience running conferences?

nick

Conferences are easy to organize. Stay tuned.

Things are looking up. We've done it before we can do it again.

CDL

Great!

Think positive! I think the idea has potential.

Nick

Our "fragile" church needs real renewal. We need to gaze Eastward toward the light of the East. Positive ideas and then action ... centered on Christ.

A conference built around an attainable vision for Eastern Christianity is what we need. Liturgy, Monasticism, the Domestic Church and Evangelization are all key components.

Stay tuned vostochniks (Latinizers too)!

John and Karl,

Are we really going to do it? We have a principal speaker. Do we have others?

CDL

Can we keep this thread on topic? We are straying and this should be posted on the thread that deals with the issue of a conference.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Father, bless!

I'm sorry, my fault.

Nick

*Starts to wonder where his reply went*

Sorry bout that, I just realized that for some odd reason my defense of what I have said is not here......odd. I'll repost what I had said.

No one that I know of but myself. I was under the impression that heresy had several "shades", so to speak. Heresy, from what I understand, is a bending and twisting of doctrine, sometimes to the point where it's unrecognizable. In that sense this document is heretical, it twists certain things. Not nearly as badly as a full-blown heresy, but a heresy none-the-less.

Again, I will emphasize that no one but myself that I know of has these ideas. Just in case a bishop thinks that someone did teach me the idea, I will say very very openly that only I thought of this and said it.

So don't think anyone put me up to this, I did it myself.

This is part of the reason why I made this thread. I know I really can't lead, first off because there are people here who are a thousand times more capable of leading than I am, second because I'm 18 and am having a hard time believing that anyone with the bishop's office will take me seriously. I'm a young'n and I know it, but I still want something done.

I'll repeat it again: I came up with the idea and put myself up to it, because I felt that it needed to be said. The streams of information that led to it was my father's definition of a heresy and my understanding of the how the Liturgy works, that if you change the meanings you change the doctrine, which is a heresy in and of itself. That's how I came to the notion that it was heresy. Again, no one advised me that it was heresy. I'm just saying what I think and am finding that the language in my head and the language in the real world don't quite match up...

As a side note, I am as loyal as humanly possible to Bishop John Kudrick, my bishop. I've never met a more personable man in my life, and I've heard far too much good about him to think evil of him.

More later

This all depends on what you mean by "Eastern Christianity", because that could be pretty broad.

Regarding Orthodoxy, I'm not sure what the overall growth/decline may be. I know some individual jurisdictions are definitely growing. The ROCOR and the Antiochians definitely are.

Andrew

I have heard it strongly suggested that ROCOR's remarkable growth is due primarily to a wave of immigration, with the caution that the second generation could be lost quickly if the Church decides to rest on her laurels.

Eli

Any church that rests on its laurels or becomes complacent will no doubt die out. That doesn't seem to be a risk particular to the church abroad to me.

It would not at all surprise me that the ROCOR has grown through the addition of Russian speaking immigrants. They have certainly also received a fair number of converts as well. I think both must be counted as factors in their growth.

Andrew

To stay on topic, if writing a letter to Rome won't work then what will? We can't just sit here on our backsides and do nothing.

Right?

I don't think anyone has said that a formal presentation of data and petition through the appropriate and legitimate chain of command would not have some impact.

At the moment we are witnessing the perennial call to conference which is much akin to that instinctive need to form a committee or commission every time there's a task to be done, such as revised the revision of the revised liturgy.

I am sure that will be loads of both work and fun for the select few who will be able to attend such a conference, but I don't see the hard work of systematicly pulling together a presentation of data, and a petition happening at such a conference, nor do I see it as the necessary outcome of such a conference.

At this point I don't see that the oppositional group is any better organized or in touch with the clergy and laity than the liturgical commission has been or is at the moment. Both sides have a book and a commentary. Both sides apparently are acting above and beyond the reach of the parishes. So what? So what next.

A conference will be much the same thing we have here only there will be fewer people able to observe or participate, and more food and drink and face to face companionship. There will be no more of a connection to clery and laity there than there is here or in any meeting room in the Pittsburgh chancery.

I certainly have not give up on a formal presentation and petition that involves the clergy and parishes.

Have you?

Eli

One advantage of a conference is that people (even if a limited number) get to know each other, making all this a little more "real". Maybe the Divine Liturgy could be celebrated in strict accordance with the 1965 Liturgikon (i.e., with all litanies, etc. Then at least it would be experienced by those who have never participated in a full liturgy.

I am not really saying that a conference is worthless. I have enjoyed enough of them in my life.

I am simply commenting on the fact that there are some temporal and material limitations to viewing or presenting a conference as any kind of immediate resolution, or even the beginning of a substantial response to the stopping or delaying the promulgation of the pending revised translation of the liturgy.

I am saying that a substantial response, with heft value, [meaning one can hold the packet of data and petition in their hands]may have to be accomplished totally separate from any conference proceedings.

I am noting that scarce resources might be better spent doing something less dramatic and fun.

What actually gets done is really not anywhere near my sphere of influence.

Eli