I don't get the problem. A rough unofficial idea was printed here in 2002 - rather like the current Passaic version IIRC. Of course it was not official - no draft is official until it is official, including the 2004 draft. Nevertheless, apart from naturaly selected indifference, it would be easy for anyone to have learned who was working on the new edition, and what were the best present-indications of its form and tenor. One cannot send out an official version before it become official. One cannot expect to receive one either. But I don't think that that is what is on your mind anyway, JD.

Not all. But many have been included among the weekly propers; others are found also in other works (vespers, matins etc.) I have not yet seen a Da Ispolnatsja and am apprehensive about it, given what was done to the usual tone in the gray book. Neither have I seen any settings of Svjat Svjat Svjat or Jedin Svjat. That's about it.
What would you like it to say? That final edits or decisions on them are still being made? That a state of convegence has been reached apart from minor details that do not require back and forth? That the other member is a bully, butIdonotmeanthisasapersonalattack? You tell me what you make out if this.

I make out of this that you are investing a personal peeve in this discussion that is not there with most of the rest of us at the moment.

In fact if you look over most of the posts while you were gone, there were some very interesting things brought to the table.

It has been said several times. The men who could come here and talk about the realities of the priestly ministry in the Byzantine Metropolia, will not. Not because they are not beleagured, but becuse they are beleagured, many of them, at this moment in time. They express the fact that they do not feel safe in speaking out.

You speak of your Church as a gem. Do you not think the conditions of priestly ministry are important in keep the gem polished and fit for display?

Should all priests lives be springtime in Paris? Probably not. But they should not be winter in Siberia either.

These are realities that none of your peevishness about their expression here is going to make disappear.

Eli

What exactly are we hoping to "accomplish at this stage"? And who(m) says, believes or dreams this is only a "stage"? Let's have it - you obviously have more behind that statement.

What happened to the "stages" involving the implementation what Rome in writing allowed us to implement, i.e. the 1940s Ordo? Something is not right here.

Once again, there is no Synod of Bishops of the BCC. There is a Council of Hierarchs, but no Synod duly established (such as the UGCC or Melkites). Just ask Job when they attempted recourse for the closing of his parish what the "synodal" reality is for the BCC.

After promulgation will be far to late for the "up front" preparation and catechesis. A script is rehearsed before the show goes onstage.

At this point your "expectation" seems quite doubtful to me - and far too many will either be gone (I have heard from several just in the last few weeks) or holding a negative attitude towards any practical effective implementation at that point due to the botched implementation.

It seems pretty clear at least at this point regarding the reality of your "expectation" - we are ordering books, will be told to use them, and that is that. The memo said nothing about the accompanying catechesis or any explanation at all.
FDD

Dear Fr. Deacon Diak:
What I have is only that which strikes me as obvious. MC on another thread expresses some surprise at his inventory of aspects in which we are well behind the curve of Easternization. The only surprise here is that anyone would be surprised. If one actually appreciated the liturgical situation - where we are and how we got there - one would not only find this as no surprise, but would appreciate what a tremendous undertaking restoration and renewal in our church really is.

What is going on? Support to enable parishes to take on a fuller more Eastern liturgical and sacramental life. Many parishes, especially younger parishes are far along in this process. And probably some older ones are lagging. This is important because these younger parishes are unmistakably the wave of the future. They don't have the baggage that hinders progress in older parishes. Not just the wild speculation on the toxic rest of the the story thread. But something more subtle and much stronger.

The older parishes have a sense of real tradition - practices actually handed down from saints that formed their lives - that younger parishes may not have. These traditions may not be "authentic" - they may not be what you find in some book of Eastern practices. Folks in younger parishes may easily say: this hybrid, Latinized, diltuted stuff has got to go. But that case is not so eaily made convincingly in parishes with their own tradition. People have seen with their own eyes salvation effected with these traditions. The salvation of souls of dearly loved forebearers. This history provides an experiential theology that is inevitably hard to displace book learnin', however much more true is contained in the latter.

On a very practical level, my guess is that one can probably most easily re-introduce things that had simply fallen completely out of use in the last generation. And if they are done well support for them will grow. Changing long-established local practices, e.g. the manner of taking the liturgy, is likely to be harder. So to me - whose liturgical experiences have been all over the map (e.g. full antiphon office with full psalms to only the Monogenes; all litanies to zero litanies), I see a great deal of wisdom in moving together, as a church, in what seems to be a step forward in restoration of the liturgy. A restoration with strong parallels to ACROD in both the antiphons and litanies. (And with the beautiful practice common in the OCA of taking the anaphora aloud.)

Is this only a stage? I hope so, and cannot see why it wouldn't be. Personally, I would love to see more proper material. More of the psalms, of course. But also more scriptural verses at the Alleluia, prokimenon, and communion hymn. And more troparia. I don't see what would stop this forward momentum.

Maybe (like Council of Hierarchs/Synod) I also miss the technical meaning. If promulgation is the declaring of the version as official, then it must precede implementation. But implementation may take some time for example for rehearsing the script and music. This would be the time of catechesis, before the actual curtain goes up.
I may be wrong, but ISTM that it is obvious that there is a need for it, and that because of that need, good people will step up and fill that need. People will serve; that is what good people do and they are not so scarce among us. And they will seek out those who feel that they should be gone, or should be bitter. I won't predict a home run, but I will predict that people will step up to the plate.

I'm not seeing much wisdom in having churches retract already fuller liturgical life as a parish, nor in enacting potentially misleading (at best) inclusive language.

We can talk about the parallels with ACROD; we can also continue to talk about the divergences (inclusive language, for example) with their material. Any priest who wishes to take the 1965 Liturgikon in its full celebration according to the Ordo will not be too far off of the comparison with comparable Orthodox usage, either - and no one has been forbidden to take the Anaphora aloud at any time to my knowledge.

I also have difficulty with removing other Catholic Churches of the Ruthenian Rescension from the comparison list as well - it is obvious and clear the 1988 UGCC Liturgikon makes the full celebration of the Liturgy according to the Ordo possible if the priest wishes, and does not legislate reductions/abbreviations or inhibit that if desired.

Why not give any parish who wishes the fullest celebration possible the ability to do so? Our guidance from Rome has most certainly encouraged us to do that.

Again, the far simpler and to me far more wise thing is to actually implement what is already on the books, and to correct obvious errors as they existed. I don't disagree that we could do more with the music. None of these require a New Liturgy.

A simple letter could be sent specificially allowing (1) the Anaphora out loud and (2) a "minimum" level of celebration by the Council of Hierarchs according to the existing Liturgikon and Ordo and (3) correcting any of the basic, glaring errors of the Liturgikon. It would take far less to do that than a New Liturgy with its associated physical (and we are beginning to see, spiritual) cost.

Regarding the home run, it appears rather to me the count is two strikes (losing HRM and now the New Liturgy) down in the count (possibly three if you count the situations in Connecticut). If this really is the first "stage", I am even more concerned now regarding this New Liturgy.

I'm not thinking so - if we being asked to buy the books without any other guidance - that seems clear that implementation is certainly imanent once the books are in hand. The time for the "rehearsal" and catechesis, I am afraid, has come and gone.

By the way, there is no Synod properly erected in the BCC. There is a Council of Hierarchs. The UGCC and Melkites have actual Synods.
FDD

The commission has already been on the road promoting the new liturgy. I wonder if some here have seen and heard the presentation. If so, would they post their reflections upon it? I've heard from one person. I won't share her reflections because it might sway the responses and I've not received her permission to do so.

Are there those here who have experienced the "catechesis" and would share their reflections upon it?

CDL

I always think it's easier to add something, than to take something away. I think for the people on the "low" end of the Liturgy, it will be easier to say to them, "we're getting a fuller Liturgy and here's why...." and there will be an understanding that Liturgically things are getting better.

But how do you take away from people who celebrate the full Recension, and make them feel good about what they're not getting? There needs to be a bigger effort to accomodate the full Recension parishes.

JMHO, Cathy

This seems very much to be both an accusation of an ethical lapse as well as a threat of bringing about professional and legal consequences against those who disseminated the review.

Such accusations and threats must be supported by evidence.

I ask djs to provide in his very next post evidence that proves that those who paid for the distribution of Father Serge’s review of the proposed Revised Liturgy were guilty of an ethical lapse, or to both withdraw his comment and to apologize for his comments. Yes, his accusation of immoral behavior is comparative and not direct. But it is clearly an accusation.

I also ask djs to make clear whether he is calling for our bishops to find out who paid for the distribution of the book and to levy both professional and legal consequences. Or whether he is threatening to undertake such actions himself.

We have received multiple complaints about this post. I have talked with several moderators this evening and this post is, to be polite, irresponsible.

This response is purely my own opinion of the Admin's last post and is not a defense of DJS's post, nor solicited by any other member of this board...


There is nothing ethically wrong with what DJS posted.
Is this statement false? no.

Promugation had not yet happened, and through more than one person, (conspircay), a critique was published and disseminated to a select group (priests).

Also quite true. There is no accusation of anyone, merely the comparison that such conduct would be unethical in the scientific world. Look up "Cold Fusion Scandal" and see how ethical lapses happen in the scientific community.

Again quite true as applied to the scientific community. Perhaps the same could be applied in the church context

There seems to be such a clamor to find threat where there is none and ignore threat where one is plain. DJS need not provide "evidence" of guilt on the part of those who paid for the distrubution of Fr. Serge's book, since he merely stated a truth. Perhaps he should have seperated that statement from the next so the hypothetical ethical (mis)conduct in the world of Scientific American would not be so hastily construed as an accusation against members of the church.

admin: We are all getting a tad touchy on this issue. Sad, but understandable, given the poorly thought out parochial catechesis and implementation of such changes by proposed by the IELC and (future) promulgation through the Council of Hierarchs without "proper" review by clergy prior to it's implementation in the parishes at large. Instead of rejoicing on the promise of liturgical renewal, we are fighting among ourselves, bitterly opposed, over what should have been a unifying force in our church, yet has become the most divisive issue in this generation.


admin: If one seeks to only interpret the paragraph as such, yes.

Irresponsible? not likely. Poorly worded and constructed argument, more likely.

Dear Administrator,
As you yourself have noted, it is difficult to control what others may read into posts, but there is no merit to the suggestion of an accusation in my post. None whatsoever.

Please recall: I did not suggest the Scientific American model; it was introduced by Fr. Serge. While I agree that that model had some points in its favor, the thrust of the quoted response is the irony of Fr.'s suggestion - ironic in light of the of the strong sanctions - in the world of Scientific American, i.e., the world of scientific review - against the actions of the sort that he and others had taken. My words clearly pertain to the Scientific American model. And they are accurate about it, without exagerration.

Do they have further direct implications outside of underscoring the irony in the introduction of this model by Fr. Serge? Where could this idea even come from?

Already in my next post I acknowledged the merit of ideas relevant to the liturgy that go outside the Scientific American model. Clearly, I am not advocating the the Scientific American model be strictly adhered to in the case of the liturgy.

Moreover, since - as I have stated a number of times - I am not connected to the preparation or publication of the liturgy, I have no standing AFAIK, for any legal action.

As to ethics - I have no idea what confidentiality agreements existed among those privy to the October 2004 draft, so I could not possibly venture an opinion about ethical lapses pertaining to confidentiality on the draft. I did not venture any opinion on that matter. Again, however, I very certain, about the nature of confidentiality in scientific review and stand by the remarks that I actually made.

I have already answered the latter question. I have have made no threat, and have no standing, AFAIK, to do so. As to the Bishops: as I have said on previous occasions, I can hardly imagine telling our bishops what to do. But if asked, I would certainly advise against it, as I can't imagine any good coming from their pursuing legal remedies even if such remedies were available. As to professional consequences, I suppose that that is a matter of canon law - about which I know even less. But I do wonder about this, and wonder if there will be some fallout. Again, FWIW, IMO I can't imagine any good coming from pursuing canonical sanctions even if they were available. I do think it important, however, especially with an eye to improved collaboration among Particular Churches, to work openly to clear any air that needs to be cleared on this issue.

I am happy to repeat that I find irony in the discussion of the "secrecy" of the process of preparing this liturgical edition - a process very transparent compared to the development and dissemination of the critique. I find it very ironic that a Scientific American review process would be suggested under these particular circumstances. I find it regrettable, to put it mildly, that dissemination both of the liturgical edition and the critique were not handled much, much better.

Thanks Steve. At least for the first part.

djs has attempted to defend himself by misquoting himself - a strange technique, since the accurate quote was given by Steve in his own defense of djs.

djs actually wrote: Now he claims that he wrote "Scientific America" and The Scientific American are not synonyms, nor are they coterminous.

As to the conspiracy charge: that can only be justified on the premise that any endeavor involving the cooperation of more than one person is a conspiracy - etymologically indisputable so long as two or more people are breathing (the root of conspiratio but not in accordance with either the legal meaning of the term nor the ordinary use of the word.

As I have stated several times, I did not write my book to make money (and I have not made any money from it) nor to achieve any other sort of personal gain. Those who urged me to write it did so because debate had been forbidden in some cases and stifled in other cases. I most certainly did not published the October 2004 draft in order to profit by it - I wouldn't be caught dead using it in the Divine Liturgy nor would I advise anyone else to use it in the Divine Liturgy.

I wrote the book because those who would be affected by the imposition of such a liturgical text have, surely, a right to know what is in store for them and a right to discuss the matter before the imposition takes place.

In the scholarly and academic community (these two are also not coterminous with one another, but there is considerable overlap) it is the custom that if a draft is to be kept under wraps, it is labelled to that effect, usually in a header. The October 2004 draft includes no such label, nor is there any indication at all of a copyright. As I have also stated previously, I did not steal my copy of that draft, nor did I bribe anyone to obtain it for me - in fact I never even requested it.

The manner in which ICEL was (and may still be) accustomed to retain all rights over its proposed texts is in striking contrast to the lack of any warning or copyright on the October 2004 draft. The ICEL texts were usually sent even to the Eastern Catholic hierarchs in the English-speaking world, and the warnings against copyright violation were clear and unequivocal.

"Everything done in darkness fears the light", and it is apparent that the simple act of making that draft available has annoyed those who produced it. Now why is that, I wonder?

Fr. Serge

This last exercise is something of a posturing gentlemen, I believe, and is of dubious merit for all concerned. I do not mean to be critical but if you truly believe much is at stake then this sort of exchange trivializes both in the eyes of some observers. I don't think old Eli is that unique that I am the only one put off by it.

If there was no need for secrecy and no attempt at secrecy on the part of the Metropolitan liturgy commissions, then a reviewed text, even a reviewed interim text, should be a welcome addition to the inherently myopic task, and also thankless task of liturgy creation by committee.

In the midst of the kerfluffle, djs wrote an entire post suggesting and declaring outright that this new liturgical text---text, I refer to now, not chant---is taking us back closer to our root and that, if nothing else, recommends the long efforts to revise a revised revision yet again, as though we, or ACROD, for that matter, have been coming "closer" to our roots, in terms of liturgical texts, over the past 60 years.

I need somebody to itemize how that is true---that this new text takes us back to our root---then I'd like to see the root text and the current text side by side. That is if anyone can agree on what "root" text is closest to the root.

We may be repeating ourselves but it seems odd that after all these weeks someone can stand up and claim "root stock" for a text they, ostensibly, have never seen.

Eli

Quite correct. But when we receive multiple complaints about a post and the person they are complaining about very often looks to find the worst possible interpretation about what others post it is certainly justified to call that person to account.

You are the one who introduced the accusation of “ethical lapse(s)” that could have “professional” and “legal” consequences. Since you spoke in terms of accusation and offered a comparative example it is certainly logical to conclude that you meant what you wrote. Your words were clearly applying the SA model to the topic under discussion. If there were not there was no reason for you to have posted them in this thread.

I will take the rest of your post as a garbled apology and a withdrawal of your accusations.

Friends,

I confess, "I did NOT make any charges against anyone in this last debate either publicly or privately." With that said I would still like a response to this which I posted above.

The commission has already been on the road promoting the new liturgy. I wonder if some here have seen and heard the presentation. If so, would they post their reflections upon it? I've heard from one person. I won't share her reflections because it might sway the responses and I've not received her permission to do so.

Are there those here who have experienced the "catechesis" and would share their reflections upon it?

Anyone?

CDL