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.

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:

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.


It's been awhile since we have had a good discussion, djs...

This is true, but often dissent is precisely a means for defending the higher good - St. John Chrysostom spent most of his life in this way.

I don't think anyone here is doubting expert opinion; rather make the process a bit more transparent. When even clergy are in the dark who will be compelled to follow these prescriptions, the precondition of mistrust will be inherent even if unintended.

Your earlier comments about liturgical texts not being actually written by the laity are in many ways valid. But liturgical uses that were not accepted by the laos in a larger context have fallen into disuetude.

And we should not forget, albeit a severe example, of the disaster with the Old Rite in Russia, as well as the amply documented liturgical disasters in the Roman Church of the last 35 years. Let us take history into account as well as the sensus fidelium. The end result will be much greater trust and respect for the hierarchy.

Dear Father Deacon Diak:

I have already specifically stipulated to the wisdom of your ideas here, and include your comment that there is a great deal of untapped expertise in the laity. So the idea of a broader review is great.

But it must also be accepted that, as with your reg reviews, not every comment will be a reasonable one, not every suggestion will be accepted, and not every one will get a specific reply. My guess is that the most unreasonable commentors (the few) will leave the experience even more annoyed: why bother to have us write out our opinions if you didn't accept them? Even so, a broader review will be worth it to develop a better sense that this is for the body.

ps If a Chrysostom came along I suspect that I would also not be including any dissent that he gave as uniformed or inchoate whining.

Agreed and well said.

djs,

I suspect that you are correct as well, including your comment about Chrysostom. That is why I suggested a six month limit on the review. We have far bigger fish to fry than this new translation but a six month review may set a new pattern for the Church. Today we run into far too many examples of people who don't seem to care if the Church esists beyond them. Some are beyond being tired of having no active role in the Church. Some never had an active role because they were never given one and so don't care one way or another. This brief examination may inspire SOME to take a new path which will lead to a more positive Church.

Then again, I may be overly naive.

Dan Lauffer

BTW This isn't to say their aren't several who are very active and champing at the bit to be even more so.