I hope I am not crossing our moderator Jim’s line in the sand. If I am, please accept my apologies and by all means delete this thread.

I thought understanding our churches process for liturgical reform might prove helpful in our discussions. With the anticipated liturgical reforms understanding the how where and who of the committees involved seems to me an obvious first step. I had heard bits and pieces myself over the years so I went on a search for solid answers as to who is responsible for what and how liturgical concerns are approached officially.


The web site for the Pittsburgh archeparchy includes this page on the Council of Hierarchs . The council is basically all the bishops, current and retired. They are the ultimate authority for us in matters liturgical. To advise the council they have created many commissions that are listed at the bottom of the page. The two that are relevant here are the "Intereparchial Commission for Sacred Liturgy" and the "Intereparchial Music Commission." Unfortunately, the full details page for all these commissions is still blank (last updated in November of 2004 so don’t hold your breath).

I am dropping the chancery a note asking them to consider updating this page soon. I think a brief mission statement and major agenda item for each commission would be helpful for us to understand what is in process. A membership list would be even better so we could forward constructive suggestions about those items to our eparchy’s representative there.
---------------------------
***Speculation Warning*** I have no official position with any of these commissions. What follows in the next paragraph is "educated" personal speculation based on various conversations over the years. In other words, I could be wrong.
----------------------------
I believe each commission has a member appointed from each eparchy by their respective bishops. For the liturgical commission I believe these are all serving priests. I believe that the music commission is made up of Bishop Andrew and an appointed cantor for each eparchy. I also understand that Parma appointed a larger sub-commission to advise their representative and review the results of the music commission. I also understand that these two commissions hold periodic joint meetings to coordinate work.

Both commissions create a consensus recommendation in their respective area that is forwarded to the council of hierarchs for action. In addition, any changes in translation must be forwarded to Rome for approval.

In short, I think the process is a sound one. Perhaps more publicity and more solicitation of comment could make this better, but fundamentally this has always appeared to me to be a consensus building process across the entire country.

Steve

Not to be redundant, and I'm willing to receive almost any change with openness, is there some wisdom in allowing the Church's laity at leasgt six months of review and use before it is promulgated? This issue caused quite an explosion of concern a month or so ago. Wouldn't the commission resolve some of this and wouldn't they be following a less Latin pattern if they at least let the laity comment before promulgation? Why repeat the same mistakes that the Latins made when they promulgated the NO on an unsuspecting laity?

Just a suggestion.

Dan L

The sensus fidelium has always been an important part in the development of liturgical traditions.

It seems in this process that sensus fidelium has only been marginally consulted.

I agree with the above post, that a minimum of 6 months be given to each parish with the final draft text, and they provide comments as a parish to the liturgical tradition (certainly everyone is free on their own as well). A response to comments must come back to the parish by the commission.

I know this takes time, but if consensus is to be built it is the best way, and every parish has input. If someone is given the chance to speak, and they turn it down, that is their issue. At least the chance was given.

I also do not see why economia cannot be given to parishes who wish to make full use of the Ordo Celebrationis as promulgated by Rome. To my understanding it has never been officially abrogated by the Eastern Congregation. Why should "consistency" be placed above parish sensitivities and abilities?

I'm less concerned about the music, as that will work itself out to what the parish can do and the abilities of the cantors. But the Liturgy - that is the source and summit of our entire Christian life, our entry into the Paschal Mystery, the lex orandi in which we profess and live out our lex credendi. That is a precious gem not to be handled lightly or somehow diminished in its beauty.

These are the members of the commissions responsible for the proposed revisions of the liturgy and music.


The chairman of the commission is Bishop Andrew (who replaced Bishop George after his retirement).

2 members from Passaic:

Father John Custer
Father Michael Mondik (replacing Msgr. Borsuk)

2 members from Pittsburgh:

Msgr. Alexis Mihalik
Father Elias Rafaj (replacing Msgr. Levkulic)

2 members from Parma:

Archpriest David Petras
Father Michael Hayduk

2 members from Van Nuys:

Mitred Archpriest Stephen Washko
Father Robert Pipta

also appointed directly by the Archbishop:

Professor J. Michael Thompson


The chairman of the music committee is also Bishop Andrew

The members are

1 member from Passaic:
Professor Daniel Kavka (now deceased)

1 member from Pittsburgh:
Professor J. Michael Thompson

1 member from Parma:
Nicolette Boros

1 member from Van Nuys:
Father Robert Pipta

I don't disagree with the idea of consulting with laity per se, as long as the laity is knowledgable about the work being done and doing it, and not just offering personal opinions about what they like. IMHO, opinion surveys are usually driven more by personal taste than a genuine regard for the way we worship.
Besides, it is really not a matter of approval or popularity; it is a matter of restoring traditions that were discarded or abbreviated, however well-meaning those earlier changes were. I think that that greatly reduces the number of knowledgable contributors.

In the case of the current revision, my understanding is that all of the groundwork- Rome approval and committee agreements, at least-are done, so everybody who says they want representation has talked already or came in at intermission, and is just now figuring out what has already transpired.

This time around it looks like there is nothing left to do but wait for final ratification by the bishops. If that does not come, then the existing pattern of every parish as different, depending on local custom, will continue. I doubt that our seminary can effectively prepare candidates for the priesthood to work with that.

We are not worshipping in a democratic institution. It is nice to know that our hierarchs have listened to our views, even if they decide in a manner that differs from our personal preferences. We should be ready to go along with their decision, because that is about all that is left at this stage of the process as far as I can see.

Trust the bishops, again. Daddy knows best. Where have I heard that argument before?

Have they? How? When?

Having an opportunity to present written comments and concerns is far from a "survey". It is checking the sensus fidelium, nothing more, nothing less. We don't need any surveys for this. We need to see what is being proposed, and have a chance to comment. That is all.

Ultimately it certainly remains the final call of the bishops, so I don't see the need to make a statement like "We are not worshipping in a democratic institution" because that is obvious and most certainly not the case. So what if a few comments are out in left field in the process, they have been made and let known.

"as long as the laity is knowledgable about the work being done and doing it" - precisely. There are many very intelligent people in our parishes who have not had the chance to have their voices heard, nor is anyone outside of a very few people directly involved with this knowledgeable about the work because no one has bothered to pass it on.

Amen, Amen, Amen, Brother Diak!

Ungcsertezs

Jim,

I think the commission is buying trouble we don't need. But I'm just a lowly laymen with no spiritual qualifications at all...so it seems. Yes, I will be obedient. Yes, with one or two exceptions I will move along but the approach is a serious mistake and is buying trouble or no good reason.

Dan L

Dan, you may well be right. And yet, the Holy Spirit moves through the Church. Sometimes things can be taken on faith, sometimes not. I happen to be in the camp that believes in taking these adjustments in good faith, but there are apparently some who just can't do that. Maybe they've seen too much change, and not asked questions soon enough in the past. I am also not so sure that church hierarchy is prepared to listen to venting and angst when there is important work to be done in the Lord's vineyards. Not all comments are worthy of a wide audience. Freedom is one thing, license (licence?) another.

Diak, my suggestion of a survey as opposed to informal comments is based on having been a technical writer where one motto was : "In God we trust; all others bring data". Informal comments sounds more like lobbying, and lobbying does not strike me as a source for dispassionate discernment on the topic. An objective, rigorous national survey by household could provide thorough data warts and all, but it is the Holy Spirit that calls the shots, I still believe, and it is His bishops who make the decision, regardless of sources. There are also financial resources involved when a survey gets sent. No, lobbying, if that is what you intended, sounds more like politics than sincere faith.

At the risk of opening another can of worms myself, who among the commission members above are not cradle Byzantines or cradle ACROD? Anybody know? I am suggesting that it is likely that converts have not dominated the process of adjusting the liturgies to be more historically accurate. In other words, what really is the matter here?

Jim,

I gather you haven't been on the forum very long or have been rather selective in your reading. I'm not sure what to say, except you doh't seem to be understanding what the concerns are. What's there to be said?

Dan L

Jim, perhaps I am not understanding your post, but "lobbying"? Excuse me if that seems rather tangential to the discussion and that is far from my intention. How are formal, written comments, point by point, with specific textural references lobbying?

Those are rather the opposite, the best way to get right at the heart of the concerns in a formal, discerned way, having time to actually think out what you want to say instead of checking a box. That is most certainly not venting angst. What politics are you referring to or insinuating? I am registered independent so politics don't have much to do with what I am saying.

I would be far more skeptical of another survey at that point, as having worked in civil service myself for almost 20 years I know every survey can be "directed" or set up to derive a pre-conceived answer. We need to see what is being proposed, have a chance to provide some feedback from the sensus fidelium. That is all.