The priests saw the text of the new liturgy for the first time at the clergy conferences in May. Complaints have been made to the bishops and letters are being written to the Archbishop. A letter to Rome with over 60 priestly signatures asking Pope Benedict XVI to intervene will be mailed on the day the new liturgy is promulgated. Yes, the Holy Spirit is definitely moving among his priests.

When the people finally see the new texts they will rise up and stop this nonsense.

“Take no part in vain deeds done in darkness; rather, condemn them” Ephesians 5:11

Diak, I am glad that you clarified what you meant by written comments and concerns. "formal, written comments, point by point, with specific textural references" goes much further than written comments and concerns.

The person on the commission that was hired to re-write the prostopinije is Irish Roman Catholic. For some reason the bishops felt that there was not a single cradle Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic who was qualified. His style is so close to Jerry Jumba’s work that there has got to be some connection.

The changes to the liturgy do not make it “more historically accurate.” The changes are nothing more than a single priest’s idea on liturgical renewal.

I thought most of the various committee members, litrugical and music, were cradle Byzantines. Is that not correct? I cannot help but believe that they have had significant influence on the end product.

Does anyone else have more information on the formal dissatisfaction (letters of protest, etc.) John Damascene outlines? There's nothing like that going on out west that I am aware of. I saw some of the new liturgical materials when I attended the NPM conference in Milwaukee (as did others who post here), but there was nothing I saw that led me to believe there would be a revolt over it.

What specific changes are there in the liturgical materials that are causing such strong emotions? Does anyone have really specific answers on this? If so, please share them with us all.

Jim,

You still don't understand the point, though at least you now realize that maybe there is a problem. Some on this forum have apparently seen the texts but for reasons that still escape me will not reveal what specifically troubles them.

The issue behind the issue is this: Since this new liturgical (prayers of the people) texts are supposed to be "of the people" it makes no sense that they be promulgated without the people seeing them. Latin Catholics like to do this kind of stuff. They dropped the NO upon the people almost without notice. I've been led to believe that the Eastern way is that the people should pray the prayers that is their faith. The concern isn't so much that liturgical change takes place, though I suppose some are, but are concerned that it is being dictated by others rather than developed by the people.

Many of the Cantors who have seen the changes like the changes. Nevertheless, the more the commission refuses to allow the people to see these changes before promulgation the further the heirarchy pushes themselves away from the people and the more suspicious some people are getting and the more likely this will not be prayers of the people but just more things shoved down upon them when the people really need to be activated to share the Gospel.

Dan Lauffer

Dan, I do understand that fewer people got to participate in the decision-making process than some would have liked. It might have made things easier if more people had had an opportunity to give informed input. I just think we are faced with trying to make the best of it, if that is possible.

John D., as to the implication that the music is too difficult, I just don't see it. Whatever has proven difficult has been changed as far as I know. I have had an opportunity to sing some of the daily menaion propers, for example, and they are only slightly different from what has been in use already.

I bet that things that need fixing can still be fixed over time, even if there are still difficult settings, and that parishes will use what works.

There are other questions, though:

How low has the bar been set in the past? Our Latin colleagues watered down too much. Did we do the same thing? Are we now restoring what was needlessly cast aside to make it easier?

With every parish in the old country singing things their own cantor's way, with differences from parish to parish, how can we possibly arrive at one Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, etc. without groups of people feeling compromised?

Jim,

I don't believe you want "the best of the situation." I don't believe you believe that. I'm eager to see this new translation promulgated and I have no idea why it took years and years to complete, though I commend the commission for keeping at it.

The "best of the situation" would be to show the translation to the people for six months, let us sing it, ask questions about it, and answer them. Then promulgate the translation to a grateful Church.

What is very bothersome to me is that whether or not a new translation is ever promulgated makes little difference if one does not have a vibrant growing Church. Letting this translation be the work of the people will go a long way in allowing people to spread their wings which they haven't done in a very long time.

Showing it to the people before promulgation may well mean the difference between people happily accepting this and running with it and gritting their teach and saying "here we go again!" We need people who are so excited about their Church that they will tell others about it not people who want only to have the Church survive long enough to be around to bury them. I've seen both kinds of Churches. I don't like the latter kind. Yet pushing a translation upon people without their joyous reception of it simply adds to a disease that most of us know we have.

Set some standards when you send it out. These are the best musical settings we have because they capture a truer sense of liturgy. We will not lower these standards. We know that the setting for the liturgy is best fulfilled without pews. We won't relinquish that standard. The translations are done sincerely with the best translations we know. While we are open to look again if you convince the commission that the translation is wrong or akward we will not change it simply because it is unfamiliar. Let people work with it. Then promulgate it. That seems to me to be the best and quickest way to nuetralize any resistence.

Dan L

Ironically, I don't really believe that a promulgated version is necessarily etched in stone. If it is not doable, no formal position or decree will make it otherwise. So far, I have seen nothing that is NOT doable, however.

What is being said about additional review, etc. also costs money- money the metropolia does not necessarily have. How can greater participation and possibly multiple printings be contained cost-wise?

It certainly is not too late to open the door and let some light on the situation, let the product be seen and let those who wish be given a chance to present their comments. It can be professional and ordered if done under specific timeframes, etc.

When I propose a new set of regulations (which I do every few years), I have to send those out for public comment. While I do not necessarily have to bend the proposed regs to every comment, I do have to respond based on the objective merit of the comments. In the end what I propose has to be protective of human health and the environment (as I work in natural resources) as well as sensitive to economic impact of the regulated community. There is accountability, this is ordered, this is professional, and we feel out the community's views, and in the end we have consensus.

How much more so should we, the sensus fidelium have at least the chance to look at and comment on what is to be the "source and summit" of our Christian life?

This is the primary means of experiencing and sharing the Paschal Mystery as a community, and is our primary evangelical vehicle. It is the means of proclaiming our lex credenti through our lex orandi. If it is not in order, we have problems. The experience of the Roman Church in the last 40 years should hopefully teach us something in that regard.

And the concerns above about time and money are not sensible - the time, effort and postage are the responsibility of those making the comments, not the Metropolia. It doesn't cost anything not sending something to press.

Send one copy per parish. Instruct the priests and cantors to copy and use these and to have people respond to the priests witnin 6 months. Even less expensive have them sent over the internet.

Behind all of this, of course, is the need for the metropolia to have a vision for the future which will allow resources to be used properly.

Dan L

Maybe our bishops can agree to what you suggest, Dan. I figure the commission does not have the authority to do as you suggest on its own.

Diak, cost concerns have to do with multiple editions, revising pages, etc. As long as everywhere is internet-friendly, costs would be less, except for local printing- a big job, and not necessarily cheap.

Dan, I 'd like to hear from an expert like Fr. David, but I would suspect that in the Eastern Way, few if any of the prayers in the Divine liturgy were composed by "the people". And implementation of any developments over the years was most typically done by hierarchical or synodal decree.

What you are talking about, ISTM, is the Modern Way; all chiefs. (And the essence of the Reformation). Fr. Kimmel has something nice on his blog from Chesterton:
" A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt — the Divine Reason."

We love, without restraint of humility, our tastes and preferences - no matter what, if anything, informs them. And we have cultivated a doubt of expert opinion - all the better, of course, for indulging our own tastes, and maintaining great self-esteem no matter how ignorant we objectively are.

Nevertheless, I think that there is great merit to Diak's suggestions. Because there will be some valuable feedback. But I pity the poor souls who will have to sift through so much inchoate whining of the sort that has been posted by a few on the forum to find the occasional useful morsel.

Dan, I suggested this a long time ago. It is not new (I even suggested it on Page 1 of this thread). Good to see it is catching on.
Deacon Diakon

DJS, thank you so much for your comments. You are a breath of fresh air.

Why it is the JMT got the position at the seminary and the call to undertake this work on the music is probably a riveting story. And I don't doubt that many had other choices (How long did it take us to get over Bob Prince's firing?) But JD, you make a telling point. If the style is so close to Jerry Jumba's, then let's agree that JMT's being an Irish RC is not adversely impacting the music. The connection? Papp, Bokshaj, ... :rolleyes: