A priest who is a friend told me today that the Eparchy of Parma sent him a fax today regarding the new liturgy.

Here are some highlights:

"The new translations of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great are soon to be promulgated. Books for the congregational participation, including music, have been prepared and will be made available at the time of promulgation. The books will be available for purchase in advance for only $12.50 each."

"Each parish is expected to order enough to allow for the participation of each person in attendance."

Sad and unfortunate.

Monomakh

this is deja vu all over again

Your previous post vanished into thin air. Was it deleted? If so, no explanation was given to the moderators.

Yeah, where did it go? Do I need to repost?

Yes, you need to repost. Unfortunately accidents do happen sometimes with overtired moderators and admins. The re-constituted thread helps clarify some things also. Sorry, for the problems.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Thank you, Father Anthony. Please disregard my query on the Moderator's Forum.

O.K. my point was that my pastor said he hasen't even seen the music to the "NEW" Liturgy. His point is how can he answer questions by parishioners if he has only seen the text and not the music. I attended Liturgy at a parish which happened to be using the new music. Why do the cantors have this and not the priests? Who chose not to share the music, and why?

In Fr. Serge's book, I don't recall him mentioning anything about the music. Has that aspect of the "NEW" Liturgy been discussed?

Again, just curious....
Cathy

In the post that was deleted someone mentioned that Fr. Keleher's book debuted about the time the new pew book was put out for bids for publication. I mentioned that timing is everything when it comes to marketing. I also recall how Bishop Spong of the Episcopal Church would publish a book every three years, just prior to that church's national convention. It helped to sell his book to the widest possible audience. Anyhow, I am relieved that the new pew book is moving forward.

Cathy, as to the new music, there was a commission that addressed the liturgy itself, and one that addressed the music for the liturgy- two commissions made up of people from the various eparchies. (This has been mentioned and discussed elsewhere on the Forum.)

So you're happy that your parish priest has been kept in the dark about all of the changes made to the "NEW" Liturgy?

Cathy, I'm not sure who you addressed your last statement to. I can only say that I am led to believe that most of the new liturgy information has been shared among the BCC clergy already. The music may be another matter, but that too is being shared by the Cantor's Institute as far as I know.

I might add that Fr. Keleher is with the Ukrainian Catholic Church, not the Ruthenian Metropolia (BCC) in the U.S.

Well, what is a parish priest going to tell the Babas in the parish why the hymns they have sung for upteen years needed to change? It's going to be a hard enough sell with all the other issues, like inclusive language, etc., now we have learn "NEW" music too.

I just don't understand why the priests were not giventhe music. Why is it up to them to seek it out? It just sounds like a snow job to me!

Fr. Keleher shares the Ruthenian Rescension with us and others. The new liturgy is not loyal to the Ruthenian Rescension and thus I don't see why he can't comment or ask questions about it. It's funny that most of the info coming out on this subject has been from those who are not a member of the 'party'.


btw, in my lead post when I said 'Sad and unfortunate.' I meant that we were one step closer to a chopped up liturgy with feminized inclusive language (the price of $12.50 didn't bother me )

What difference does that make...he's Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic, like we're Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic. Secondly, we're supposed to be working toward a common translation so why wouldn't another Eastern Church come out with their comments. I wish the Orthodox would step forward and let their opinions be heard. Besides, what motivation would Fr. Serge have regarding OUR Divine Liturgy. It's perfect -- someone outside the US and outside our Metropolia who is not influenced by OUR church politics. Additionally, our priests are probably afraid to come out and challenge the "NEW" Liturgy for fear of reprisals. Besides, if their input was valued, don't you think this would not be done in secret???

IMHO, all the Eastern Churches should be working to shut this "NEW" Liturgy down as it doesn't bring us closer together!

JMHO, Cathy

Cathy,

well said.

It is said to see that rather than working toward commonality and unity with our Greek Catholic brethern, we are moving away from them and risking causing a further bifurcation in our own church.

If faxes are circulating regarding the coming of this new liturgy and ordering books, then I guess the days of having any commonality with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church like the Ruthenian Rescension are numbered. It seems that the powers to be want to make this the once and for all split from the UGCC (in case there was any doubt) and move us away and on our own island.

Monomakh

I think that that is a lofty goal, for which there is unfortunately no mechanism. Is it a comment heard of when other churches and Orthodox jurisdictions are making their books? No other church is sitting on hold, waiting for this great united effort. We aren't either; and we shouldn't.

WOW!! Me too!! I would like to hear from ACROD on the office of antiphons and the their view of the importance of literal translation. I would like to hear from the GOA on the translation of philanthropos. I would like to hear from the OCA on the audible anaphora. I would like to hear from the Antiochians on vesperal liturgies. I would like to hear from Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, Melkites, ... What fraction of them use "Holy Strong"? And I want to hear from Sourozh on "Each and All".

Fascinating point not to be missed: We didn't get books from any of the others noted above. And we didn't get such books disseminated with intriguing secrecy - disseminated not to our IELC or Bishops but to directly to our priests! We didn't hear them suggesting that prospective conferences on the liturgy be held away from Ruthenian influence. Why not? Do the math.

Anyone who truly wants unity among all Byzantine Catholic Churches ought to appreciate that this great adventure, that disrespects the autonomy of a Particular (not Local) Church, is a step backwards. Unity follows respect.

I think that Fr. Serge's work does make a number of points of interest on authentic tradition. But the liturgical instructions, like it or not, include more than that. Perhaps help is on the way to understand the issue of organic developments within the recension, with attention to north/south distinctions. Maybe help is already here. Maybe our IELC and our Synod had some thoughts on that. It is, moreover, clear that there are many who are more familiar with liturgical and pastoral situation in our Church than Fr. Serge, as he, in effect, conceded. Authentic tradition, organic development, and pastoral considerations are, per the instructions, to be balanced. This is what Bishops of Churches do.

I think that the call for unity is a good one, but I think you are horribly mistaken if you think that that would be advanced by churches looking to intervene into the crafting and promulgation of each others liturgical books. Or liturgical music, ... There are many positive steps that could be taken to advance unity. This isn't one.

We shouldn't be surprised any of this is happening, but let's look at the state of our fragile little church.

I still wonder who the audience is for the new new Divine Liturgy? Come out on stage please. Make yourselves known.

You'll love our new, improved, emasculated DL.

Surely, we must have studied the demographics of our Metropolia to determine that we have a majority of feminists who clamor for inclusive language. Well, looks like they'll get what they want.

We must also know that our people want their own little hybrid Church with 45 minute Masses. So, chuck the antiphons, litanies, etc. They slow things down.

And why bother to evangelize anyway?

I wonder what His Holiness Benedict XVI thinks of the new translation.

What a sad, short history for the Rusyn Greek Catholics in America. Eternal memory!

Just for the record: by religion I am a Greek-Catholic. By citizenship and ethnic derivation I am Irish on both sides of my family, for as far back as anyone knows (and the cemetery in my mother's village has been in use since the sixth century).

I have no idea what that has to do with anything under discussion, but since people have taken it upon themselves to call me a Ukrainian, of all things, it seems time to set the record straight.

It is true that according to some historians of the Celtic peoples our remote ancestors, several thousand years ago, passed through both Ukraine and Hungary (and left behind some stone carvings in typical Celtic style), but since neither the Celts, nor the Slavs, nor the Magyars were Christians at the time (it was long before the Birth of Christ) that doesn't seem particularly relevant either.

Fr Serge

Dear DJS,

My point is that since our Hierarchs aren't listening to their own priests, as is pointed out by Father Serge in the opening pages of his book, then maybe they can listen to the comments from other jurisdictions. How can the church ignore not only comments from their own priests, but also those by a well-respected scholar who wrote a 200+ page book on why this Liturgy shouldn't be put into practice? The stonewalling doesn't make sense.

I think what you mean to say is Unity follows mutual respect. As Fr. Serge pointed out in an earlier post on another thread, this "NEW" Liturgy appears to have come from a Latin mindset. If we are to be interdependent with the other Eastern Churches (as is pointed out in the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Easters Churches, Congregtion for the the Eastern Church)how will this translation bring us closer to the Orthodox and how will this "NEW" Liturgy gain us respect? If it will, then by all means promulgate it and let it be seen by all! As Fr. Serge explains, "While a certain distinctiveness is certainly permitted, a certain cohesion and identity is also necessary, and the distinctiveness depends upon establishing that common identity."(pg. 99-100)

Again, in the Instructions for Eastern Churches, it pointedly states that we should avoid differentiation between the liturgical books of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox. Common editions are encouraged. Give them the book and see if they would use it -- my guess is it would land in the "circular" file.

DJS, are you too going to pout? This sounds like a statement you would hear on the playground. The Vatican didn't give instructions to the Orthodox, the Vatican gave them to the Eastern Churches. It is up to OUR church to work in good faith on this Divine Liturgy and to follow the instructions set forth by Rome. Are you suggesting we ignore what they have instructed us to do?

Agreed, but how many churches have actually seen their Bishop in the past year. How many priests have shared a dinner & conversation with their Bishop to share their concerns of their particular parish? Not many I would suspect. I believe in mho, that if the clergy felt they were being listened to, Fr. Serge could have sat in Dublin whistling Dixie instead of trying to help a church a continent away from self destruction. Take a moment and think about what motivates Fr. Serge, better yet read the first chapter of his book.

For the life of me, I can't think of a more important step than a unified Liturgy, can you? Or are you suggesting we trade Pirohy recipes and come up with a common recipe?

And we are so happy to have you here, Fr. Serge. Perhaps the Irish will save the Byzantine Catholic Church, as they did save civilization, after all!

Cathy,

"Well, what is a parish priest going to tell the Babas in the parish why the hymns they have sung for upteen years needed to change?"

From Job:

"As a follow up to my post back in April...after a few more months with ACROD it is now easier to use their music than what I had used for 30 years prior...It's a great reminder that it's all a matter of perspective and what you become used to...The "new music" that is being proposed by the Metropolia of Pittsburg and that you are able to find on the Metropolitan Cantor's website...is much closer to what is currently utilized in ACROD...(I applaud it!!!) It simply serves as a reminder to me that if you let go, accept change, and leave it in God's hands you will realize that's all it is...change, in whatever form is never easy, and with time all wounds are healed to the point where you forget they existed in the first place..."

What a waste of resources, time and money! That amount of money could have been spent to form new mission parishes! What a waste, indeed!

Ungcsertezs

Amen!

Dear Cathy,
Why, thank you! Shall we band together and start the Hibernian Greek-Catholic Church? Think of all the eyebrows that would send into the stratosphere! Not to mention the possibility of Archbishop John Ireland whirling around in his grave!

More seriously, it took several urgent requests from friends in the Pittsburgh Metropolia before I agreed to write my book. What finally convinced me was the point that of set purpose neither the Inter-eparchial Liturgical Commission nor the Hierarchs were prepared to listen to the protests from within the Metropolia.

Unfortunately, this latest insult to the intelligence of clergy and faithful proves that point only too convincingly.

Come visit Ireland sometime - in fact, let's organize a Pilgrimage!

with every blessing,

Fr. Serge

Cathy, I think there's at least one reason why they don't. It's not their church and it doesn't affect them directly. By offering comments or opinions on the matter, it may very well look like they are sniping and/or gloating. Either way, I would imagine if an Orthodox person did offer comments, it would probably immediately raise a post like "the Orthodox do x, y, z, etc.".

I think if you're really interested, you should talk to Orthodox people you know and trust to give you their opinion. It probably helps if you explain what the changes are, because if you're not in the BCC, you probably don't understand all the ramifications of the changes or the nature of the changes themselves.

JMHO.

Andrew

I too would like to know what pastoral exigency there is for the changes. Who wanted them? Who is clamoring for inclusive language and less litanies and antiphons?

Is this what anyone on this forum wanted?

It's been a criticism of the critics that they don't know the actual state of what goes on in the metropolia. That presumes that the IELC does know. Do they know of anyone who wants this?

As far as I know, we will be the _only_ church in the entire Catholic Church to use inclusive language in the creed, which is, I think, a dubious distinction. Who wants it? Other than the IELC and the Hierarchs, I mean.

Incidentally, the policy on inclusive language is inconsistent: in the creed we say "for us." for Philanthropos we say "lover of us all." In the tropars from the IELC, we occasionally say "mankind." Why the difference? If mankind is verboten, why does it still appear. If it is allowed, why drop "anthropos" from the creed? I don't expect any answer, but I'd still like one.

Yes. I keep getting slapped in the face by this "fact" that the clergy in the metropolia have all been informed. Every time I ask a different priest, I am told that they may have been informed that there was to be a new translation coming, but that was the extent of the information and any questions that they had were essentially ignored, particularly the question of where the impetus for this new translastion had originated for it surely did not come from the priests or the people.

So I wonder who to believe. Our pastors or a committee or set of committees in Pittsburgh?

There really is only one way to stop what is happening or reverse the promulgation now, and that is wholesale rejection of the text and the music. What do you see as the chances for that given what we already see around us?

What priest will risk his pension and health care for a few misplaced words and musical notes?

Eli

Cathy,

The introduction of the book is coming to everyone in the BCC metropolia in the U.S., not just internet users, if recent posters are correct. I am hoping that great care will be used to implement it. Most of it is not so different. If earlier posters are correct, we are moving on to its introduction and implementation, which means discussions will now take a turn in some direction other than whether to publish and to distribute it or not. Not everyone on the net will call that progress, but I do.

Dear Elitoft,

I personally know of two cases where episcopal pressure was put on people to be silent, one about the new liturgy, and one about another related matter. Those concerned could speak of it here if they choose, but it will be risky for them.

Dear Jim,

I'm glad you're in a "happy" place with what is taking place. Perhaps you are in the "know" regarding all the questions that remain unanswered to the rest of us, including our priests. Do share what you know so that all of us can be as excited as you!

When other Eastern Catholics and or Orthodox become excited about our translation, so will I...because that's what Rome wants -- a translation we can all get behind.

Dear Eli,
Thank you for your good suggestion. I may do that and already have someone in mind. This "us against them" mentality needs to stop.

JMHO, Cathy

Jim,

Consider this:

1. The first time the Passaic priests saw the text of the New Liturgy was when they received a copy of Father Keleher’s book in the mail.

2. The first time two of the three members of the Passaic Liturgical Commission saw the text of the New Liturgy was when they received Father Keleher’s book in the mail.

3. Only a select few of the priests anywhere in the country have seen the new music. It has only been shared with those who support the New Liturgy.

4. In May the Passaic priests were required to order copies of the New Liturgy books for their parishes without even being allowed to see one. Now it looks like the same is happening in the other eparchies.

We have used this translation of the Liturgy and the music for 40 years now. Fix the mistakes and reprint it. Don’t revise our church into oblivion.

JD

Cathy,

I'll probably disappoint you. I'm just a cantor in a small parish in Arizona who has been struggling to get comprehensive music resources even since I started being a cantor- materials for myself and for my congregation as well. The old Levkulik (sp?) liturgy book is no longer in print, so we had to print pamphlets locally. Lots of music hasn't been in book form for decades. A new comprehensive book that includes lots of music is just what I want, and will enable the congregation to sing easier, especially newcomers.

The language discussion is not where I'm coming from, really. I am looking forward to having the resource. I figure that we are all there to worship, and that it is best to focus on that without getting bogged down in wordsmithing. Not everyone agrees with me, of course.

JD,

I am sorry for the difficulties you mentioned in Passaic. I have not experienced them where I am.

Jim,

Where did you get your advanced copy of the New Liturgy? You seem to have access to a lot more material than most priests.

We don’t need to rewrite the liturgy and music. The bishops forbid anyone to reprint the current books. That was purposefully done so that the demand for pew books would be so great they would overlook the agenda driven new liturgy and music.

Reprint the old liturgy books music with corrections. Don’t revise our church into oblivion.

JD

Cathy, The Bishops have an IELC of their own priests. How many should have been on the commission? How many, in addition to the Bishops themselves, should have had veto power? In any case, if other priests have opinions that are not carryng the day, it is naive in the extreme to think that a polemic from someone in another Particular Church would be persuasive. Fr. Serge is a well-respected scholar. But our IELC didn't lack for scholarship. (Or pastoral experience.) You may not like the overall product, but I don't think that can be attributed to a lack of scholarship. The discussion between them clarifies that point, that more than academic interests were involved in the new edition.

Please recognize that the closest Orthodox church to us, ACROD, has the same office of antiphons, and very much the same litanies. They have used tranlsations from our seminary. They have used Father Petras's ambon prayers. I know that some of Helen Spanovich's music has been used by us. As Job has pointed out, the restoration of prostopinije will also bring us closer. You may prefer, perhaps, that we were closer to some other jurisdiction rather than to that whom we strong bonds of common history and liturgical culture. If so, why?

Really Cathy, you couldn't have missed the point more completely. First, I clearly did not restrict my comments to EO churches, but included EC churches. More importantly, the point is directed at your suggestion that it is perfectly normal that a priest from another jurisdicion would write a critique of our liturgy, and cooperate in its secretly-financed distribution to our priests - rather than to our IELC, our bishops, or even to Rome. If this practice were somehow normal, the question is obvious: why is this the only instance of such a gesture?

Yes. First, prepare for this unity by building trust through gestures of respect. Simple example: Work cooperatively in the establishment of missions in the rediaspora of the US.

Where did you get your advanced copy of the New Liturgy? You seem to have access to a lot more material than most priests.

JD, I don't have an advanced copy of the liturgy. I saw a draft copy a year or so ago.

Music I have gotten over the years from parishioners, our administrator, Professor Thompson, priests, and numerous websites, or have produced from old copies using music software. There are very few currently published BCC music materials.

Risky? Depending on the physical health of the priest it can be lethal.

Direct disobedience to a bishop, on the part of a priest, is called contumacious disobedience and is punishable by the removal of faculties, which is also consequencially a removal of all monetary support including health care.

Similar to what has happened to Father Dan Bitsko, for example. There are many others in that diocese over the past ten years or so. Some have been able to receive due process. Others have not.

Removing a priest's faculties is an action that can be taken by a bishop without any recourse to due process for the part of a priest. Canon lawyers cost money and the first tribunal is the bishop's tribunal and the bishop controls the court. So you can see the difficulties here for a priest trying to find justice in that sort of canonical morass.

So for many priest's the act of "standing up" for what is right may lead to a loss of his vocation and perhaps, under the right circumstances coming together, the direct loss of his life or dramatic shortening of his life.

These things are very real in the Catholic Church, east and west, and cannot or ought not be glossed over by the laity because they "don't sound right." Sound right or not it is a harsh part of the reality of the lives of the very men charged with the care and pastoring of our souls.

Eli

Father Keleher’s review of the text of the new liturgy seemed very scholarly and unemotional to me. Which parts of his book did you consider to be polemic? Can you site page numbers so I can go back and look again?

How can we work cooperatively when we have two different liturgies?

Which liturgy would we use in a joint mission?

Do we use the Ruthenian Liturgy? Or do we use the Petras/Pataki Liturgy?

Perhaps I am reacting to his discussion of it here.

First, I really don't know how different the practice is in a Ukrainian church - what abbrevations are typical. But, cooperation doesn't have to mean joint. It may just be a modicum of respect shown in considering the effect of that establishing a new mission may have an another parish. I have yet to hear a word along those lines from anyone here, when folks happily announce a new UGCC mission drawn from parishioners at a BCC parish. Not the slightest word. Some sort of non-competition agreement -that would be a nice start.

They probably get tired of drinking the Kool-Aid(R).

Dear djs,

You've commented on your use of the term polemic here. I am not in full accord that the attitude of some discussants can substitute for the substance of Father Keleher's review.

So let us assume that Father Keleher's review is not at all a polemic, by strict definition.

Are you suggesting, and on what grounds if you are, that the current liturgical text is sound and solid doctrinally and theologically?

It seems to me that it has been amply and objectively demonstrated there are some major weak spots, theologically and doctrinally, in the Newly Revised Interim Liturgy for 2006.

Forget about using the 1941 shelved recension provided to us by Rome. Just look at the content of the current liturgy and presume that it will at some point go forward.

Would you say that these weaknesses are insignificant in terms of sound orthodox liturgical praxis?

How would you speak to justify the bishop's refusal to address any kind of critique that would extend this promulgation for a month or two until the case could be presented to them, for one further review?

Eli

Edifying shot, Cathy. Do you even know what you are talking about? We are talking about very Eastern BCC parishes with full liturgical lives. And at least in one case a time line that made it completely clear that this nothing to do with the new liturgy. (It was about Ukrainina ethnicity.)

This goes far beyond what I can competently comment on. I can say however, that, there is nothing that I have seen that will make me think differently theologically. In fact, whether I chant the Creed with the filioque or not, I still have the same (dim) comprehension of the Trinity.

I have no knowledge of the refusal and could not give any justification for it.

Off to the mountains - bye.

The Kool-Aid(R) I'm talking about refers to the post by John Damascene. Do you think it's alright that the priests in Passiac had not seen the "NEW" translation until Fr. Serge's book? DJS, let's stay on topic. We have a translation that is not supported by many, many clergy. Can a group of men, having studied to be priests, and serve their parishes be completely off base. Add in another Greek-Catholic Scholar thousands of miles away who pens a book and says what our own clergy are not allowed to say.

I think the bottom line here is motivation. Why are the priests not behind this, and why did Fr. Serge write a book? If the "NEW" Liturgy were so wonderful, why all the discord?

Incidentially, can you give me a link that will give me access to the ACORD Divine Liturgy?

I have it bookmarked. here .

Andrew

I see.

So for those who are already well catechized, theological and doctrinal weaknesses in the liturgy pose very little by way of confusion or threat of heterodox thinking. That makes sense.

What about those who are not well catechized or strong in the faith or open to heterodox arguments, and they do exist internally as well as externally?

Perhaps you can mull that over when you get back from having a good time in the mountains.

What happens to priests who try to "correct" that which is weak in an approved liturgy through catechsis?

Shall I tell you how many priests from my nearest Latin rite diocese have been de-frocked in the past four years for teaching what the Church teaches concerning homosexual practice? Better than one a year. It can be done. The examples abound.

Do you think this gem of your heritage is immune from such things?

God's blessings on your going out and coming home.

Eli

Yes, the ACROD liturgy with one verse 1st and 2nd antiphons, optional 3rd antiphon, no little litanies, no litanies of the catechumens or faithful, no litany of supplication after the great entrance, no rubrics about reciting anything silently, same communion prayer, music more like the new than the old.

It is nearly identical to the Levkulic Book and the New Book in what is provided and what is omitted save the few instances of inclusive language in the New.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Have you actually read the book?

Or are you just relying on the unsupportable claims by Father David that anyone who disagrees with his opinion is automatically guilty of attacking him?

Father Deacon Lance,

The Liturgicon on the holy table at the Johnstown seminary is our 1965 edition. I’ve been there and have seen it.

JD

I have been amused throughout that no one has actually gone and read the ACROD liturgy. I dislike it intensely on several scores, textual not musical

I really am sorry that this revised revision of our liturgy is being promulgated without further ado. I think there are some poorly conceived, poorly argued, textual weaknesses that will come back to haunt unless there's another revision planned in a couple of years to our Interim Liturgy.

I am sorry to see our Deacons and Cantors defending it quite so strongly. You really are the ones who could have stepped up and made a difference without great loss to your vocations or your positions in the Church.

Eli

JD,

So have I. And the 65 Liturgicon sits (or should) on the altar of every parish in the Metropolia. Has it affected how the Liturgy is celebrated?

The point being the normal way the Liturgy is celebrated is outlined on that website, is in their pewbooks, and is just like the Levkulic and New Books.

For me actions speak louder than words, even those in print. Having a Liturgicon is fine and good, but what really matters is how the Litrugy has been and continues to be celebrated. For the vast majority of Byzantine Catholics and ACROs the Liturgy on that website represents what has been normative in most parishes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Do you understand the difference between a standard and what is allowed in parishes?

If standards are so unimportant then why not go with the 1905 Liturgicon? It is much closer to what is celebrated in parishes then either the 1965 Liturgy or the proposed Petras/Pataki Revised Liturgy.

Rome told us to raise our “as celebrated” to match the official Liturgy. Why is this directive from Rome so unimportant to you?

JD

JD,

"Do you understand the difference between a standard and what is allowed in parishes?"

Yes, what people fail to realize is the 1965 English is not the standard, the 1941 Slavonic is and it remains so even when/if the 2006 English goes into effect.

"Rome told us to raise our “as celebrated” to match the official Liturgy. Why is this directive from Rome so unimportant to you?"

They did? My 96 Instruction says we should try to differ as little as possible from our Orthodox counterpart. Our Orthodox counterpart is ACROD. Our Liturgy differs very little from it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Do you realize and acknowledge that the 1965 English Liturgicon is very faithful to the official 1941 Slavonic Liturgicon published by Rome?

Do you realize and acknowledge that the proposed Petras/Pataki Liturgicon is NOT faithful to the official 1941 Slavonic Liturgicon published by Rome?

Do you realize and acknowledge that the proposed revisions (missing litanies, prayers mandated to be prayed aloud, alter rubrics) are NOT being promulgated in Johnstown or anywhere else in Orthodoxy?

If you accept that we should try to differ as little as possible from our Orthodox counterpart and that our Orthodox counterpart is ACROD then you must also accept that the revisions do not take us in the same direction they are going.

JD

JD,

Did you look at the ACROD Liturgy posted at this website:
http://aggreen.net/liturgics/C-R_Div_Lit.html

It matches well every ACROD Liturgy I have attended. And it matches well with the Levkulic and New Books. Again I see in the ACROD Liturgy: one verse 1st and 2nd antiphons, optional 3rd antiphon, no little litanies, no litanies of the catechumens or faithful, no litany of supplication after the great entrance, no rubrics about taking anything silently, and oddly no teplota.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My head is going to explode. Only when the convenience of supporting our revisions are the Orthodox upheld.

When they do something less than Traditional(to be charitable) we use it as an example. When they do something Traditional, it is overlooked. Many, many, many, many, many OCA churches today were former Greek Catholic Churches, don't you agree? That split happened around the same time or 10-25 years at the most in some cases before the ACROD split. Why aren't they upheld as an example? Answer: because they as a whole are way for faithful to Tradition and aren't a convenient example to justify abbreviations, etc. I know that someone is going to say church xyz in city abc does this shortcut like us and therefore since 1% of the OCA is lax that we can be to. Amazing!

There is another thread here that lists a litany of diffences in practice between most Greek Catholics and most Orthodox, and in every case the BCA is the one that abbreviates and takes the short cut.

I guess it's our destiny to be Watered-Down Orthodoxy.

Monomakh

And yet these same bishops have

- restored infant Communion
- ordered the Presanctified to be celebrated during the Great Fast
- ordered the restoration of several litanies that used to be omitted entirely
- ordered abstinenced from meat on Fridays and recommended it on Wednesdays
- ordered the filioque to be removed
- supported the restoration of Vespers and Matins

All of these were changes I saw take place in WV and southwestern PA in the course of the 1990's. The proposed liturgy is FAR more complete than anything we celebrated in 1995. I am glad some parishes have even more complete services, but

- people here have called for as little change as possible
- people here have been concerned that the priest should not be allowed to alter what's in the liturgical books (fears of what Latins priests have done have been expressed, as well as "each priest his own typikon")

ONE way to resolve that (the one the bishops seem to have chosen, not necessarily the one I would have) is to prepare liturgical books that represent the service perhaps a little longer than celebrated in most parishes (much longer than in some, shorter than in others) and order it to be used as a practical minimum - rather than producing a complete book and saying "of course, omit what you like, we understand."

Also - for many years I have encountered flak from Orthodox Christians who insisted "Mother of God" was a theologically incorrect translation of Theotokos / Bohoroditsa, and a blot on our claim to be Orthodox. "Theotokos" is a term I hear every week at our OCA parish (which does NOT have Matins, by the way...), and I'm rather glad at the chance to stop apologizing to friends of mine. (Similarly, on "God grant them many happy years" rather than "blessed years.")

Yours in Christ,

I'll commend them for this. But let's be honest. These items are SUPPOSED TO BE THIS WAY. This reminds me of people I hear patting themselves on the back because they take care of their kids and pay their bills. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS. It's good it happened and sad it took that long. Let's keep going with restorations, why not?

Quote:

... "Theotokos" is a term I hear every week at our OCA parish (which does NOT have Matins, by the way...), and I'm rather glad at the chance to stop apologizing to friends of mine. (Similarly, on "God grant them many happy years" rather than "blessed years.")

I answered this in the 'I have never.. thread. Seems to be more on topic there.

Monomakh

Father Deacon Lance,

I have a copy of the Johnstown Liturgicon on my bookshelf. Metropolitan Nicholas told me that he authorized it as a temporary measure to raise the Liturgy from the abbreviated Liturgy that was common in Johnstown 10-15 years ago. Metropolitan Nicholas insists that the seminary use our 1965 Liturgicon because he wants the next generation of priests to celebrate a fuller Liturgy. Call him if you don’t believe me. He is a very welcoming man – excuse me – person – excuse me – human – excuse me – mortal.

You are right that there are no rubrics that the anaphora be prayed quietly. Has anyone ever demanded that the bishops mandate that these prayers be prayed quietly? The Revised Liturgicon mandates that these prayers be prayed out loud. How is this the same as Johnstown?

There are Johnstown parishes that take a very full Liturgy. Are you saying that this New Liturgy is just an adjustment of the Ruthenian recension to the lowest style of Liturgy found in ACROD?

JD

Jeff,

Does the fact that our bishops have done what is right on many occasions mean that we should support them when they are doing something wrong?

JD

djs writes:

Is he perhaps suggesting that we should all head for the hills?

Fr. Serge

Karpaty here I come!

Monomakh

(note: Karpaty is Ukrainian for the Carpathian Mountains)

The sad part about all of the this turmoil is that if people aren't happy with how they're celebrating the Divine Liturgy, they'll leave. The majority will not write their bishop, or Rome for that matter. They'll pick themselves up and not return. For the people here on the board who obviously pay attention, we all know we're hanging by a thread. I really worry about the "brain drain" that could leave the church over this. I wish the Bishops were as concerned, but frankly if they are keeping their clergy in the dark, it doesn't bode well for us dumb laity in the pew, who happen to $upport the church.

The good thing about the controversy surrounding the new revised liturgy is that it has finally pushed me into visiting two of the local Orthodox Churches in my area.

Now I know that I can avoid the use of so-called "inclusive language" prayers by simply going to the Orthodox Church that is a ten minute walk from my house, rather than drive to the Ruthenian Church that is an hour and twenty minutes away from where I live.

I went back and and read the first post that got this thread going and I'm wondering about something that maybe someone can clear-up.....

It was my understanding that once the promulgation took place there was a waiting period of about six months. Why would any priest, who hasn't seen the music spend mucho bucks outfitting their parish with books they haven't seen? If this were on the "up-and-up" why would this approach be taken?

Buyer Beware in this case.

caveat emptor is right Cathy

and you are asking good questions that more should be asking.


Here's another question:

We all know a letter was sent approving the text, and there were some very pointed comments regarding the structure of the liturgy.

I belive one of them dealt with how sorry Rome was to see that the Ruthenian church in America felt that it could no longer find time to sing all three verses of the antiphons. (NFL pregame show aren't that good )

I doubt that this will be corrected. Why not?

Will the peoples book have them kneel during the consecration and before communion? (even though canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council would differ).

Monomakh

I am probably going to open some wounds by this post, but I feel it has to be said. I remember before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Liturgy, there was cathecetical instruction given to the faithful over a period of time. Not that many were overjoyed by the introduction of the changes, but it helped ease the transition for many of the faithful instead of just arriving one day and having a revision thrust upon all.

This transition and instruction seem to be a major missing factor here. From what I can see, Father David's cathecetical book regarding this revision is being sat on, and not being released. It could probably end much of the furor or could contribute to it, that has to be seen. I think that by a title such as "Time For The Lord To Act: A Catechetical Commentary On The Divine Liturgy" , it may have something to contribute to this issue.

I recently obtained for myself Father Serge's book. I find it interesting and will leave the comment at that. I would also like to read Father David's book, as to know where I should weigh in with my meager opinion. Maybe that is what we should be clamoring for, instead of spending money on books that may be problematic in implimentation.

Just my humble opinion.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Amen! Most churches do not have the extra money to throw at a set of books that could be recalled.

You are not suggesting here that a parish priest or a parish pastor has any choice in the matter are you?

Eli

Sure, I mean they keep saying my parish gets to keep all the verses of the Antiphons, even though it's not going to be printed...and technically that's a choice, right? So are you saying maybe that's not true?

The next time someone says we have the option of taking all the Antiphons my reply will be, "May I have that in writing please?"

Thank you Eli, I think I'm getting the drift!

I think we've gone slightly adrift from one another, but that's ok!!

I meant to be asking if you thought our priests have a choice as to whether or not to invest in sufficient new books for their parishes.

Eli

Eli, I was being funny. Sometimes you have to laugh or else you'll cry!

John S:

How said that many will leave the church: I wish that more work and effort was done to insure the growth of our Byzantine faith: I think that a book can be written about our failures to bring
the teachings of JESUS into the hearts masses:

Actually what will the new wording do for the
faithfull: God help us

Oh.... ! My funny bone moves around a lot.

Eli

Yes, it seems the older we get the more the bones have a way of doing things we do not want.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Good points. I would like to hear more about the financial side of this - the posts that mentioned the money aspects disappeared.

While a democratic process is not traditional nor practical in the development of liturgical texts, and certainly there were shortcomings even amongst getting input from clergy in this BCC New Liturgy process, there is another issue.

I think every Christian deserves to know how their stewardship is being spent - the hierarchy should be proud to show the money is being used wisely, as the talents in Scripture. That is not democracy - that is common sense and transparency in fiscal responsibility.

There is definitely an aspect of financial accountibility here - the current problems with the OCA should provide serious consideration of that end of business. I would like to see what this whole process has cost our Church. Everyone should be able to see what the fruit of their offerings has been in this regard. Don't keep the lamp under the couch.
FDD

Very well said.

Now I went to a public school, but even I may be able to begin to figure out some of the costs.

The 2005 stats for the world's Eastern Rite Catholics says that in the US our rite has 99381 members. Now we've all been told that the reason why it was reproted that we had 268,161 people 15 years ago and now we have 99,381 is that the past numbers were bogus and the current number is good. I'm sure that if we see another 50%-60% decrease in the next 15 years that the 'good' numbers will also be called bogus but that's for another day.

So:
$12.50 * 99,381 = $1,242,262.5

I have the windows closed and the AC on, but I can still here the howls of "Not every person attends every week, small children can't read, they won't order that many.

OK (1/2 of membership)

$12.50 * 49690.5 = $621,131.25

Wait, I hear it again "That's not a good number either, you can't have half a person!

OK (1/4 of membership)

$12.50 * 24,845.25 = $310,565.625


So to recap if the parishes purchased 100% the number of books for number of members

$1,242,262.5


If the parishes purchased 50% the number of books for the number of members:

$621,131.25

If the parishes purchased 25% the number of books for the number of members:

$310,565.625

Is 1/4 of membership too high or too low?

you could do a lot of evangelizing with even $300,000+.

Now this is just books. Plus there is shipping costs. There are other costs of course as well throughout this whole process. Plus, how do you put a price on the time that was spent by very well educated men that could have otherwise been spent on evangelization?


Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

Nice figuring, but what percentage are you figuring will leave when they see the books/Liturgy?

As an aside, anyone who's in sales knows it takes twice as much effort to gain a new client than it does to keep one you already have.....I hope the Archbishop gives this statement a thought...he will be in the business of selling a "NEW" Liturgy, which will be difficult if his own priests haven't seen the finished product, and aren't on board with it too. Good Luck.

JMHO, Cathy

See what I mean you called him Archbishop...I have noticed this backsliding. You did not refer to the Metropolitan. I have been watching this slide away from being a particular Church in the language used and the photos (whose wearing or not wearing what). I think people should make comments to the bishops and ask where is the Klobuk and when will they get themselves a real mandyas. Dont ask why, ask when.

His Beatitude Metroplitan Judson in heaven pray to God for us!

What's the point if you seek nothing more than an eastern rite and a ritual as your other posts indicate? You don't need a Metropolitan OR an Archbishop of a particular Church at that rate.

Very confusing. It's as though you are off on your own little island.

Eli

He is off on his own island - Australia!

I'm right behind you my friend.

I believe that the church of St. Peter has an overall serenity that can transcend jurisdiction, but it is up to each seeker to work at it, too. Worship occurs at many levels, but at its heart it is a personal act of Faith. Language differences may not turn out to be so critical in the long-run, depending on what theology goes with them. Examples of theology gone bad abound, but I see no betrayal of orthodox theology in this case so far. Wordsmithing is a perilous craft, fraught with potholes and minefields. An attempt to correct wrongs and clarify wording is a brave undertaking, and a thankless job, as all this discussion indicates. I will look forward to seeing what works, and what doesn't, just as with anything else that is supposed to be "new" or "different". Sometimes there turns out to be nothing all that earth-shaking in the long-run, but it can seem like the apocalypse in the here and now. Time will tell.

I have a very keen sense for the subtle and deceptive intrusions of radical feminism. The inclusive language of The "NEW" Divine Liturgy translation reeks of this poison. I will not be able to tolerate sitting in the pews week after week, seething at this unfortunate innovation which was forced upon us. And I can envision investigating the nearest Orthodox parish. I beleive that we may lose many of the most devout and seriously motivated Ruthenian Catholics due to this debacle. How very sad

Jim,

I think that assertion needs to be defended or perhaps explained. At its heart, I would say that the most important worship is common and timeless--it belongs to Christ and his Church. Of course it becomes my "personal" act of Faith when I participate in what is common. But even this "personal" act is a gift of God to whom the worship is directed.

lm

I think that assertion needs to be defended or perhaps explained. At its heart, I would say that the most important worship is common and timeless-

I guess there can be extremes when it comes to how much or how little a worshipper interacts with the community. There is a saint, possibly Seraphim or Sarov but I could be wrong, who was so spiritually reclusive that his monastery had to send someone out to his skete to remind him to return annually for his Paschal obligation. Earthly time sometimes is transcended in the quest for spiritual perfection. (Not sure where else to go with this, quite frankly.)

The Ruthenian recension books are the product of our bishops – Carpatho-Rusyn, Ukrainian, Slovak, Romanian and Hungarian – asking Rome to prepare them for us. The commission that prepared them was not secretive. The minutes of the meetings were published.

We didn’t get our liturgical books from others. We got them by working with others.

We disrespect these other Churches when we now say that our initial cooperation with them was wrong.

We disrespect these other Churches when we now say that we want to intentionally work apart from them to be different, a Third Way.

Passaic and Parma have now required pastors to order copies of the revised final revised version of the Revised Divine Liturgy. These pastors were not even allowed to see the final product before ordering!

Let’s hope this whole process remains so secretive that no one will be ever see the final product!

Dear John,

I agree, and I hope so too!

The bishops (and their Liturgy Committee) have shown such arrogance over this new book. They've completely lost touch with their people.

Is it too late for somebody to listen and reconsider launching this ship to nowhere?

Nick

I'm sorry, but I just keep thinking that this grave discussion is really a tempest in a teapot. Once everyone gets to see and try out the service book, I think we will all be in a much better position to discuss its merits.

Those who are left, will also be in a better position to count the cost, it's true. But I'm not talking about the $$$. Tens of thousands of dollars have already been spent on this misguided book. I am afraid that the real cost will be much bigger.

This is about our Church, and its future. It's a big gamble.

Once the damage is done, we can have our conference, and sit around discussing the mertis of leaving the Ruthenian Recension behind, the merits of this step... It will be interesting to see who comes.

Nick

this misguided book

I'm sorry. I have to withhold judgment of a book I have yet to see in its final published version.

Once the damage is done, we can have our conference

I also have to withhold judgment as to damage. In addition, I have serious doubts that a conference would be called by our hierarchs to review the results of the book's implementation. That sort of meeting is more typical of the secular world, not the church. More likely would be a meeting or meetings of the IELC, etc. to review it.

I doubt that if our hierarchs did not see fit to inform either the people or the clergy of the project while it was going on that it would be likely they would call a conference of either or both to discuss any damages that accrued therefrom. That just doesn't sound realistic.

Those who reject change are architects of decay.
The only human institution which rejects change is the cemetery. - Harold Wilson

Nearly all great civilizations that perished did so because they had crystallized, because they were incapable of adapting themselves to new conditions, new methods, new points of view.
It is as though people would literally rather die than change. - Eleanor Roosevelt


As I sit here enjoying what beauty surrounds us on a refreshing Friday afternoon and yet reading all these harsh words rejecting the pending promulgation of our updated Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and even rebellion against our leaders of the church, I can’t help but feel as full of sadness as I am of joy.

It appears I am in the minority looking forward to this revision. Having seen only a portion of the work put forth by the IELC and IEMC, I am in awe of the dedication and effort put forth over the more than five years of this spiritual undertaking. I have witnessed hundreds of people’s opinions and suggestions considered. I have seen rewrite upon rewrite to put forth an acceptable publication. One of the main, seemingly unaddressed issues to me has been the question “what was Archbishop Judson’s intent when he commissioned this task”? My understanding was that the Metropolitan wanted to correct translation errors which were 30-40 years ago. We now have more knowledge and have involved more scholars to assist in this task. I also thought there was the desire to return the music to truer Prostopinije representation utilizing words more in the vernacular of today’s English language. And another goal, perhaps the most important (?), was to put into the churches and people’s hands a standard common liturgy which could be used by all members, guests and visitors entering a Byzantine church.

Has anyone else felt embarrassed at having non-congregational members of their parish come into the liturgy and not be able to give them a book with which they can follow along and perhaps participate? Are we not to welcome guests into our Houses of the Lord? And what about even our own people, that can’t go to a different church and sing along because most parts of the liturgy are done differently from parish to parish. Granted that uniqueness is one of the beauties of our heritage, but in this century, in order to grow and bring in new members we must have available a means to make any person who shows any type of interest in our Eastern services comfortable and part of the celebration.

I have heard and seen numerous comments, reviews and suggestions both positive and negative towards the upcoming changes. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. For now, I feel there is more evidence that these revisions bring our church closer to our past while allowing us to evangelize towards the future. And in at least one way not allow our churches nor our proud heritage to whither into the ground. I pray we all remember that the goal is to serve and worship the Lord, not ridicule and attack our fellow men (and women).

And the demerits?

You mention a review. When? Are we to look forward to a revolving door liturgy? Do we expect errata inserts to paperclip to the pew books, or entirely new pew-books? Or does the errata simply become part of tradition?

The Latin rite has been waiting nearly forty years now for the errata to become tradition and it has not happened nor is it likely to happen.

What is so appealing, to our deacons and cantors here on the Forum, about this liturgy? I suppose some of you trained with it for some years, so our deacons and cantors are more well informed concerning the text and the process than our priests. I find that exceptionally odd. No. I find that to be a derilection, on the part of the servants of the servants.

Ahwell.

Eli

Has anyone else felt embarrassed at having non-congregational members of their parish come into the liturgy and not be able to give them a book with which they can follow along and perhaps participate?

Well, not exactly embarrassment, because we do have pew booklets. What has been awkward is the lack of printed hymns. Seasoned Byzantines know them by heart, but visitors often have never heard any of them before. There is supposed to be lots of music (Are there hymns? I don't know.) in the new pew book. As a cantor, I see that as G-O-O-D.

our deacons and cantors are more well informed concerning the text and the process than our priests. I find that exceptionally odd. No. I find that to be a derilection, on the part of the servants of the servants.

Do you really think that's true? I have yet to see the final version of the new book. All I know is what people have told me about its contents, and I cannot judge what I haven't seen. Maybe there are only a few priests who take the time to post here. Some find the Forum to be frustrating and counter-productive.

Dear Eli,

You are a smart man. Sadly, yes, it would appear that that is the plan.

Cathy

Jim, if what you were after was music, there is an easy way to create a new BOOK with MUSIC, without butchering our beloved Byzantine Ruthenian Liturgy. I think our esteemed Administrator may know a way to get music into the books rather easily.

Cathy

You have more information, at this point, than any priest that I have spoken to in the past six months, or at least since the order was sent down to get order information ready and start figuring out how to pay for the new books and that was months ago.

There's every indication here that our priests are not informed. There is nothing I have found in the other real world to counter that assertion.

I'll stand by what I said.

Eli

Hymns ad libitum are not prominent in the Byzantine tradition of liturgical music, although there are a few. Most of our chant is regulated by the Typicon. Exceptions include the traditional Christmas carols found in much of Eastern Europe, a few hymns often sung during Holy Communion and some hymns which were originally used at Pilgrimages and then found their way into popular use. As one might expect, some of them are not altogether optimal.

A much better source are pieces which are actually a part of the liturgical collection but which are also used when wants something suitable to sing - the Paschal Canon comes to mind for use during Paschaltide; the Akathistos is popular among the Slavs all year round, the Canon to the Theotokos "I shall open my mouth" is often used, and so are the Polyeleos Psalms - many more examples could be cited.

Anyway, that's about how it tends to be.

Fr Serge

... if what you were after was music, there is an easy way to create a new BOOK with MUSIC, without butchering our beloved Byzantine Ruthenian Liturgy.
-------------------------------------------------

If Archbishop Basil is allowing parts of the updated liturgy to be used in the Seminary and Cathedral, how could anyone insinuate as to classify it as butchery?

Well it is if your parish is using the "Gold Standard" Red Book.

JMHO, Cathy

So too a poorly conceived liturgy, simply because it is allowed by a bishop, does not make that liturgy any less poorly conceived.

You see what I am examining here? I seek to point out the weakness in the logical premises you use and not the substance of the examples.

Eli

It seems quite clear that the unusually tight secrecy of the thing has poisoned everybody's perceptions. Needlessly, it would seem.

Yes, it was done in a veil of secrecy, and we get a glimpse of it in Fr. Serge's book. People are worried by what they read, and when you add 'different' music, well that adds to the worry.

When I sat down with the NEW Liturgy and compared it to my beloved Red Book, I was heartbroken.

Cathy

I really don't understand this refrain about "secrecy"? Is there a substantive complaint, is this just some meme aimed to taint the whole project? Honestly.

I'll repeat the same questions I've posed earlier. How many should have been on the IELC and IEMC? Who beside Bishops and the Pontifical Institute should have had veto power? Who was somehow prevented from looking over the early drafts on-line here since 2002? Who was somehow prevented from looking over the drafts at the Cantor School or posted at the MCI? Who was prevented from posting here anonymously? Who was prevented from sending constructive feedback to those on the commission?

JOhn S wrote: P-A wrote:
Perhaps this is just venting. But. Since I've been a critic of those "don't know the actual state of what goes on in the Metropolia", perhaps I should respond.

I certainly have not suggested that this knowledge derives from some marketing survey about what people want. What an idea! In general, I am confident that the church will provide things that I need and am ready to bear , despite, and sometimes in diametric opposition to, what I want and think I can bear. That is the knowledge that is important in leading a community from whee we are to where we must go.

Please enumeate specifically these problems of possible heterodoxy. My observation of what has been discussed on the forum: we have some very clever people who can take many texts and give them a heterodox spin. How realistic is it that such interpretations will arise? IMO not likely.

Pretty much yes. Because we have always been more theologians of prayer than of esoterica.

Thanks. I believe your prayer was heard.

Monomakh wrote:
I presume the explosion failed to materialize. But you have the argument backwards. The Instructions like to talk of deviating form our Orthodox kin as little as possible. But which ones? Why would ACROD not be the appropriate standard for our church? What is your authority for your apparent disparaging of the practices of ACROD? Why do discussion of the Instructions omit these inconvenient facts?

Your comments about the difference between ACROD and OCA practices (as standards) is truly amazing. This is all readily understood in light of the history of those years.

Fine. But they weren't. To move a community from where they are to where they are supposed to be takes some doing. And that doing deserves some acknowlegement. If you look at the big picture, progess is being made. Don't dismiss this progress.

From JD:
That seems to be the story going around. Kudos to Bishop Nicholas? I asked before: how long has it taken ACROD to get its people where they are SUPPOSED TO BE, even after jumping to the Orthodox communion? And why this incremental approach? Why is such an approach laudable for Bishop Nicholas but anathema among us?

.

Isn't this the case with so many things not only here in the church...but in terms of people exercising their power...(Hiliary Health Care, VP Cheney Energy policy/meetings)

I see it from people of authority all the time working in corporate America. What I see as the big problem here is that Bishop's are servants...priests are servants...the faithful are servants...this is quite contrary to servanthood to do things then impose them...

Shouldn't servants work together to better their situation? In the case of the Church...shouldn't servants work together for their betterment (if that's a word) of glorifying their master (Jesus Christ). The master is Jesus Christ not the Bishop or Metropolitan.

When one branch of servants goes off (I don't care who they are bishops, priests, or faithful) and does there own thing...that's when the issues arise...A good dose of Sobornost is what is needed...Didn't think I knew that word as a Hungarian did ya

DJS, thank you so much for your efforts to catch up with all the amazing comments here.

The secrecy issue reminds me of the conspiracy theories about the deaths of John Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, and so on. No matter how much information is available, there is someone who says they weren't informed, or didn't get sufficient information.

There are enough of us here who know enough different clergy to know that this comment is not only insulting to good and faithful men and their vocations, but also that it is a deliberate refusal to accept the fact that they have been left in the dark.

There is no reason for a priest in any of the four eparchies to lie to any of us who have gone and asked, about what their experiences have been or not.

For most of the priests, most of whom are not Internet jockies, Father Keleher's book with an old copy of this latest revision was the first hint they have had of what is to come.

The exception to that is the Passaic eparchy whose priests do have some idea what the new liturgy will look like, for it will be quite similar to the text for the divine liturgy that they have had unilaterally imposed upon them for nearly a decade. There will be no respite from that, coming over the horizon, for most of them, in this life.

Eli

Eli, Jim gave no insult to our priests and implied no lying. It is really impossible for anyone but the participants to know exactly what has gone on in these private conversations that you allude to. Dialogues on the forum make it clear that it is difficult to control what a second party will make out of another's remarks. That is why this kind of talk doesn't carry much weight.

The idea that there is a veil, so sinister, of secrecy that justifies any speculation on action and motives behind them - accusations of ignorance, bigotry, and outright evil that have been an unshakable part of the discussion for years now - thus remains at the fringe. The fact that the work and decision making was put in the hands of a committee and Synod that has kept discussion confidential pending final promulgation does make it true that many priests and others were out of the loop - especially if they did not look around for available material. That, however, does not justify the "veil of secrecy" meme. Nor the idea that an insult was hurled or that a lie was implied.

I would like an answer to djs's question above, too.

If it will help, " No matter how much information is available, there is someone who says they weren't informed, or didn't get sufficient information. " did not pinpoint any particular person or group, and there is no reason to think I had one in mind.
Who is entitled to know stuff and when is a sidebar issue when compared to the project at hand. But, those who think they know too little too late may not be easily consoled. That is regretable.

Such information should be available to practically anyone who wants it - if this is done, people will not be able to complain that something has happened "behind their backs", as it were. A process of natural selection will then occur: those who are sufficiently interest to respond will do so; those who aren't will swiftly get tired of the topic. It happens every day in many other fields. For example, there is an excellent popular-scholarly publication called The Scientific American, in which those interested can keep abreast of what's doing in the world of science. These matters unquestionably affect all of us, but how many of us read it? I must confess that I don't, though I would probably benefit from it.

As for who should have "veto power", that's more complicated than it might seem. In fact, too complicated for this evening.

Fr Serge

The very fact that so many of our clergy do perceive that they've been ignored in this process, YET are still not sufficiently confident of their bishop's reactions to stand up and say so publicly, is indicative that something is wrong.

Threatening, overt threatening from the top of the hierarchy down, is commonplace in the Passaic diocese, for example. That should be apparent from the accounts of parish closings right here on the Forum. The Forum records are still there as initially recorded. They seem to be credible a witness. Others have spoken of being aware of threatening behaviors or direct orders to silence.

So too then is that witness credible, every bit as credible as you and Jim, who are somewhat out of the loop where you are, in terms of the densest populations of faithful and clergy.

When I say, for example, that I know more than a dozen priests from two eparchies on the right coast who are frustrated by the lack of communication, and a few more who have been threatened and ordered not to speak of the matter of the new revisionm that is a simple statement of fact. And they, collectively, know more than I do.

But as you say, implicitly, who will stand up and speak into the glare of the headlights?

Easy for you. Who will be taking care of your pension and health care over time?

I don't deny that it is entirely too easy to turn this into a dirty dog fight which is entirely unnecessary. Tempers have indeed run too high here.

But to try to make a very real internal problem simply disappear by trying to discredit the messengers, myself and my correspondents or the others who have spoken out here, is just foolish and will do your Church no real long-term good.

It is one of the splinters that needs to be excised in this process or we run a serious risk of loosing what good men we have left.

Eli

This is not quite accurate. Making something available on a non-Eparchial website has its own downfalls in terms of legitimacy - anyone can post anything, and in nearly all formats these are subject to possible real-time modification.

Again, a major failure in the implementation process of this - were an actual posted text placed on an official Epachial website I might see some validity in djs' statement, but it was not.

Were an actual text sent around for clergy feedback or at least an advance copy (as the Latins, other Greek Catholics, and Orthodox seem able to do) perhaps these comments would carry some objective weight. It was not. It seems a bit ludicrous to think clergy have to resort to a circuitous route of exposure to determine what is going on - again none of the routes djs suggests carries any semblance of an official notification or FYI from the hierarchy.

Regarding the reference to the MCI site availibility - not everyone uses MCI material across the Metropolia, that is obvious (for a variety of reasons) and MCI does not carry any other weight than suggested musical texts, some of which have ecclesiastical approval, some of which do not. Why should a priest have to read into this that something showing up on the MCI site is automatically assumed to be either a present or future normative text?

Again, no word from the hierarchy - until the notice of ordering texts. There are clergy who knew little other than an alleged Internet text here and there until they received the request to order books - and certainly never were officially sent a final draft of the New Liturgy. I know clergy in the Metropolia who simply do not use the Net - are they to rely on second hand notifications from parishoners or other clergy who do to know what is going on? How about some news from hierarchy - now that is a novel idea.

"Feedback" was sent - most that I know of sending received no replies, or simply noting that said correspondence was received. It is a circular process - clergy don't know what is going on, they are basically being treated on an "as needed" basis. We hear texts are available on the Net - but these can be found nowhere with an approbation of official proposed promulgation or authenticity.

It is secrecy? Or poor implementation? Probably the latter but honestly I don't know enough with the information given to conclude.

The average parish priest was indeed kept out of the process in a substantial way. Developing the texts is one thing, taking to the "next level" of clerical notification, preparation and catechesis is something entirely different. We didn't tell you much, now order the books. We'll tell you what to do next. That is the message, intended or not.

Again, if the clergy are to be brought along to the alleged benefits of adopting a New Liturgy, absolutely no catechetical attempt has made to justify its existence, or to "train the trainers" - those that will be tasked with celebrating a new lex orandi (and yes, with the inclusive language issue alone, it is a new lex orandi) and on the ground THEY will be the ones to celebrate and use the New Liturgy. Even in our recent eparchial "Heaven on Earth" public presentation, given this year (and which was a success at least in our area) we used the older translation, and not the New - and the draft was certainly available for the Eparchial management to try out.

And to clarify - the BCC does not have a Synod but a Council of Hierarchs. The UGCC and Melkites have Synods.
FDD

As they say...The grass always appears greener on the other side of the fence.

I think that Fr. Serge's analogy to Scientific American is a terrific one. But it should be noted that readers read, and may if so moved provide comments, only in the aftermath of publication. There is no process for dissemination of drafts, apart from the disgression of the authors. Often authors themselves are subject to an embargo, promising not to discuss contents until after publication. The review process is anonymous and strictly confidential. Comments after publication may or may not be published in subsequent issues according to the disgression of the publisher. Typically, in any such respose the author will have an opportunity to respond and get the last word.

Like FD Diak, I don't know what the actual implementation/promulgation plan was for this work. It may have been nothing, other than: here it is; it may have involved more of the catechesis that FD Diak is calling for. We do know, however, that the process was short-cut. Prior to promulgation opponents conspired to disseminate a critique of the work. Such conduct would be considered a major ethical lapse in the world of Scientific America. It would certainly have professional consequences, and pehaps legal ones as well.

I still do expect a catechesis and a discussion of the decisions made by the IELC and the Synod of Bishops in their crafting of this new translation/pastoral adaptation of the liturgicon. I expect that it will address both broad objectives and specific decisions.

I expect that this will do little or nothing to satisfy those who felt that they should have been invited to be on the IELC. I expect that it will do little or nothing to satisfy those who feel they should have seen the working draft even more than a year before promulgation, and that they should not only have had the opportunity for feedback, but that somehow their arguments - whatever informed them, or for that matter whatever informed the counter-arguments of those who opposed them - should have won the day. I suppose that it will do nothing at all to satisfy any immediate complaints. But it will, when the dust settles, provide a idea of what we are hoping to accomlish at this stage of restoration and renewal, that may be of interest to our next generation.

Well, it is quite possible to publish a draft as a "proposal". But it is even better to circulate the draft to those concerned before those who have produced it become overly committed to it.

Fr Serge

Those ideas, although completely at odds with the Scientific America model, have some merit. The downside is, as I've said before: what happens after the circulation? What expectations are raised by such a procedure, and how likely is it that those expectations can be met? Is the possibility partisan division lowered or raised by such a process? Hard to say. As rocky as the present procedure is, it is possible that some ideas might lead to outcomes plainly worse.

It might not hurt to mention either, Father, that the purpose of a circulated draft would be to include brother priests, not competitors and potential intellectual thieves.

I fear that some of the perspectives here are beginning to make our priests sound a bit like chattel. That is not odd. If you took a poll, you will find many who feel that way...branded, herded, milked, and set out to pasture.

Eli

Well stated, Father Deacon!

The greater failure is trying to “improve” our tradition without first praying it.

Where were official versions of the texts posted here in 2002? Is this now an official website? Please provide the links to this official information from 2002. Do I remember correctly that Father David just recently stated that even the October 2004 version reviewed by Father Serge is outdated?

Can you provide links to the revised musical settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy?

Not even all of the members of the liturgical commission have seen them.

What does it say when two of the three members of the Passaic Eparchial Liturgical Commission have seen neither final text nor final music?

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

Fr. Serge,

You too should watch what you post. It is IELC we are speaking of rather than ICEL. Would that have happened as you posted, perhaps things would be more orthodox in the RCC.

My defense of DJS was more of an attempt to inject some logical reasoning into an otherwise emotionally charged debate. This, as most of my previous attempts, failed.

Steve

Sorry, Steve, but you missed it here. djs’ logical flow was clear. He stated: 1) that opponents conspired to disseminate a critique of the work, 2) that such conduct would be considered a major ethical lapse in the world of SA, and 3) that in the world of SA it would certainly have professional consequences and perhaps legal ones as well.

It is clear that djs meant to issue an accusation and to judge those who disseminate the review as immoral, unprofessional and possibly illegal. There is no other reason for him to have introduced such a comparison.

The problem is that djs has no foundation for his statement. No one has come forward to tell us why they chose to disseminate the book. Djs assumes that their intent was nefarious. Why does he do so? How does he know this? How can he be certain that those who disseminated the book were not invited by someone in authority to do so? Or received a blessing for that work? How does he know that their intent was nefarious?

Djs’ comments remain irresponsible. I have accepted his attempt to clarify them as a withdrawal of his accusation and an apology.

I agree with your first comment, although probably differently than you meant it.

I disagree with your second comment. No one has provided evidence of that those who disseminated the book conspired to do anything except begin a discussion about a potential major change to how Byzantine-Ruthenians celebrate the Divine Liturgy. No one can claim it to be true that the person or persons who disseminated the review meant anything more.

The whole discussion on the Forum is the realm of private conversation. No bishop has given a blessing for these discussions and, as far as I can determine, no one has taken anything from these discussions back to those in authority for consideration. Even with the participation of learned folks like Father David and Father Serge this whole discussion remains in the unofficial category. Compare it, if you will, to a discussion during coffee hour after Sunday Divine Liturgy. There is no way anyone can suggest that the discussions on this Forum equate to a very public and open discussion of the Revision to the Divine Liturgy guided by the bishops. [Let’s face it, only a small percentage of the Ruthenian clergy and people are internet savvy and know about this Forum, let alone participate here. The greater part of these discussions most certainly occur in local parishes after Sunday Divine Liturgy with coffee in hand.]

I am confused. We are confused. He, she it is confused.

Eli

PS: The ICEL is a bug bear abt. copyright. They went bonkers when people began translating and distributing Vatican II documents into English and making them public at the very time that they were making uncalled for liturgical decisions in text and in rubrics and music. Some people could then rightly say "Vatican II did not mandate THIS!!" Heaven forefend!!

So too their texts were distrubuted in draft form however all orthodox commentaries against weak theology and poorly constructed text, inclusive language, and other related banalities were ignored.

True.

And since this is the case then djs should not be called to task quite so harshly for expressing an opinion over coffee and donuts.

Why would one bristle over donuts and coffee, at a comment which carries no more weight than a sneeze, a wink or a nod carries during the homily?

Eli

I'll just quietly exit this discussion, while I still have my dignity.

Steve

It broke the tension in a way and was a great distractor from something that should have been kept private in the first place. You are a knight, as Father Deacon Brown might say, not a knave!

Have you read any of my typoos leightly?

Eli

Because even over coffee and doughnuts it is irresponsible to make accusations that cannot be proven.

The discussion on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform has been strong, born of strong beliefs either towards reform or towards the official Ruthenian liturgical tradition. For the most part it has been free from personal judgments. If you look at my posts on this topic, for example, I have strongly stated that I believe that those proposing reform are well intentioned even though I strongly believe that they are wrong. djs has crossed the line by making an accusation by comparison that those who disseminated the review of the Revised Liturgy are somehow nefarious. Your own posts have come very close to the line of personal judgment of those in authority. Unless one has proof and is willing to document it, the only thing one can do is to assume that those in authority (or those one disagrees with) are mistaken in their facts / position on the issue / judgment of an issue while also assuming good intent of that individual. And, of course, if one does have actual proof of wrong-doing the matter should be taken to those in authority and not placed in the public forum for discussion.