Sunday at church, some recent newcomers from the Roman Catholic world were saying that they had been attracted to our Ruthenian Church by its liturgical classicism and dignity. When I informed them that what they admired may be soon swept away by the ”New Revised Liturgy,” they quickly asked, “And has anyone organized a PROTEST over this?”

They explained that the Romans had accepted the Novus Ordo fourty years ago without a whimper, but that “In the years since, we have learned to protest and make our voices heard.”

So, how can we get started?

1. Tell your priest that you, as one who pays the freight for this operation, don’t want your Divine Liturgy revised.

2. Write to your Eparch and tell him you don’t want your Liturgy revised. Tell him that you are holding up your response to his Eparchial Appeal, and giving it prayerful consideration, until he gives a satisfactory response.

3. Write to Metropolitan Basil Schott and tell him you don’t want your liturgy revised, and that you are holding up your response to the Eparchial Appeal until you receive a satisfactory response from him. His address is: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, 66 Riverview Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15214. I plan on calling his office at 412-231-1697 and also faxing him at 412-231-1697.

4. Print several copies of the Revised Liturgy and show them to the influential people in your church, pointing out that the Little Litanies have been scuddled, inclusivist language has been added, and giving your other concerns with the perceived weaknesses in the draft document. You can download a draft of this document at: Click Here

5. Every one of our parishes should have one or two copies of Fr. Serge Keleher’s book circulating amongst the people. Ask that the book be kept moving from family to family, each week. Talk up the issues.

6. If the Revised Liturgy is introduced in your church, tell your priest that you will be leaving for a few weeks, “checking out” other churches… and that your envelopes will be going with you.

Unfortunately, our dear priests will have no voice in the matter. Their jobs, their insurance and their retirements are contingent upon absolute obedience to the ecclesio-ologarchy. But you and I, who pay the freight, can speak out with impunity.

Once the New, Revised Liturgy is distributed and is in the churches, it will be too late. Figure that the existing Liturgy books will be burned immediately. “The old books were dilapidated… the Health Department made us burn them,” or some such, we will be told.

Let’s get busy, before our Liturgy is taken from us !

Time was when practicing the Faith was centered in prayer, fasting, and alms to the poor. The above proposal does not do that for me. Sorry.

Before anyone decides to start picking at this post or the poster, I am going to remind posters that any personal comments will be dealt with severely. If you want to respond to the initial post in charity and by observing the rules of this forum, please feel free to do so. If not please don't post. This will be the only warning in anticipation.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Dear Pravoslavna - thanks for the endorsement of my book!

Father Serge

I agree with this sentence Jim. I would add that our Divine Liturgy is central to who we are too. Most folks that have come to our Church have been evangelized and drawn by the liturgy.

Imagine if we were allowed to experience all the beauty of our complete Carpatho-Rusyn rescension!

This could be the genesis of real renewal in our Church.

We need to pray, fast and offer alms that the recasted Divine Liturgy disappears before we do.

As Pravoslavna observes ... we also need to act.

In Christ,

John

I'm afraid that it's a bit like the silence of the lambs within the Metropolia these days...everyone may be a bit gun shy since the days of KOVO in the 1930's.

Perhaps the Ruthenians need an injection of some good Lebanese blood into their parishes...better yet, import Lebanese parish council members! You want a recipe for action? You got it!

In all seriousness, if you consider the # of members from the Metropolia that actually participate on this forum, I doubt any great national movement of "filial/fraternal protest" could originate. But then again, given the size of most parishes, the voice of two or three families could have a real impact.

Perhaps a summary of the key points of Father Serge's wonderful book could be published as a leaflet (along with information on how to obtain a copy) and distributed by concerned laity. Leaflets have a great tradition within history - some have even been known to influence the course of events.

Surely there is no harm in making sure the flocks are well informed.

Hmmm - those familiar with the history of Kyivan Rus' will remember the prominence of the brotherhoods in times of ecclesiastical crisis, and how they printed materials, provided catechesis, etc. Perhaps the time is right for the revival of the brotherhood - given the current climate and circumstances.
FDD

5. Every one of our parishes should have one or two copies of Fr. Serge Keleher’s book circulating amongst the people. Ask that the book be kept moving from family to family, each week. Talk up the issues.


I would also suggest in fairness to also supply copies of Fr. Petras' book "Time for the Lord to Act".

Having some Lebanese in the parish is an excellent idea - especially if they can cook Lebanese food.

Fr. Serge

I'm Roman Catholic, I sing in the choir of a Tridentine Latin Mass chapel, but I am very appreciative of your tradition. Please organize yourselves to defend your liturgical heritage! Don't become a Byzantine Novus Ordo!
Why don't you prepare sample letters for people to download, print, distribute, sign, and send to their Eparchs and the Metropolitan?

Does this book address the questions at issue? I understood it to be a reprint of his articles in the Horizons newspaper, which, despite their virtues, did not address the reasons behind the translation choices. In other words, I don't see it as a counterargument to Fr. Serge, but rather as addressing different questions. If that's the case, why provide it?

Pseudo,

I did not read Fr. Serge's book and I am in the process of reading Fr. Petras'. I believe both views should be given equal time.

I have noticed that some issues of concern are addressed, such as "Father, give the blessing" versus "Master, give the blessing" and why prayers will now being taken aloud. If this book is part of the catechesis from the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia in the US, it should at least be given the same consideration as a publication with an origin outside the US.

I have not the faintest objection to giving Father David Petras's forthcoming book serious consideration; his scholarly credentials are good. But I have every objection to the "geographic bigotry" which Zeeker offers to my book, which he confirms that he has not read. This is not the scientific approach to anything.

Fr. Serge

Forgive me Fr. Serge,

I would be happy to also read your book and give your views consideration. I however do have to first give my allegiances to the Pittsburgh Metropolia because that is where I was born and raised, and whose leaders I am under the jurisdiction thereof. I have not come across your publication at our Seminary, Monastary nor Uniontown. Is it available in the United States?

BTW, I do not consider my views "bigotry", but I am offended by those on the forum (not yourself) who automatically attack the Liturgical revisions based mostly on the fact that it is changing the last 40 years. If these people are musically knowledgable, it should be easy to see that the music we are currently following was much more of a departure from our previous Slavonic services than the music being proposed.

-Z-

Seems to me all this is just one of the unfortunate side effects of belonging to a "top down" church.

If you've chosen to be Catholic, you've chosen to allow those placed above you in the hierarchy to make these important decisions for you - and if you don't like what they decide, you can protest all you want, but ultimately you only have two choices:

1. take it, or
2. leave it.

If you want to belong to a church which takes direction from the laity rather than gives it to them, you picked the wrong church. That may sound harsh but that's the way it's been for about 2,000+ years now.

It seems unfortunate that changes in the text and in the music are being implemented at the same time. I cannot really comment on the music, but, reading Fr. Serge's book, I'm unhappy with the changes in the text. Could it be that people that like the new music are not so keen about the new
text?


By the way, I bought Fr. Serge's book from:

Stauropegion Press
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Cost: $20 + $4 per book shipping & handling.

"Time was when practicing the Faith was centered in prayer, fasting, and alms to the poor. The above proposal does not do that for me. Sorry. "

I hope this means that the Revisionists are going to make Vespers and Matins MANDATORY for ALL Parishes. (Right after publishing a Julian Eccliastical Calendar with ALL Fasts PROPERLY marked.)While they are at it they may as well set up a St. John the Almsgiver Society for the care of the poor, widowed, and orphans.

Excellent points, Pseudo-Athanasius!

I still plan on reading Father David's book. I very much enjoyed his articles.

Gordo

If the hierarchs abandon the faith, God will provide new hierarchs. The Chirch will not fail.
Jesus Christ came in meekness and humility, renouncing the emblems of power and status. He did not impose his ways on anyone or force a form of worship. When his disciples jockeyed for position, he urged them to serve one another. His followers thorugh the ages did not always graps the implication of this teaching or follow it.


A case in point occurred in the events which led a council to depose Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, on December 12, 1667.Greek and Russian prelates joined in making the decision.
Mistakes and mistranslations had crept into the Russian liturgy. For instance, the Russians signed the cross with two fingers, rather than three as the Greeks did. Nikon insisted on reform. But many Christians who grew up with the traditional Russian forms protested the change back to Greek forms. If the Greeks were so correct, why had God placed most of Orthodoxy under Turkish rule? Nikon responded in autocratic fashion and, with full state cooperation, attempted to crush anyone who refused to accept his new service book.

Under pressure from the Tsar, Nikon resigned, but was reluctant to let go his power. He continued to agitate for a restoration of his authority. In fact, he even returned to Moscow and tried to take up his duties as if nothing had happened. The Tsar wanted to replace him, but, to avoid charges that there were two patriarchs, requested that Nikon be formally deposed.

The synod agreed. Anger, hurt feelings, and retaliation were apparent in its decision: "Whereas we have now learned that Nikon lived tyrannically, and not meekly as befits a prelate, and that he was given to iniquity, rapacity, and tyranny, we debar him, in accordance with the divine and sacred canons of the evangelizing apostles and of the ecumenical and local Orthodox councils, from every sacerdotal function, so that henceforth he shall have no power to perform any episcopal act ... and we decree with the entire local church council that henceforth he be known as a common monk called Nikon, and not as patriarch of Moscow; he will be assigned a place to dwell to the very end of his days, and may it be some old and suitable monastery, where he can lament his sins in great silence."

Though he was banished to a monastery on the White Sea, Nikon's reforms were kept. The persecution of Old Believers that had been instigated by Nikon persisted. Later, the dying Alexis implored the forgiveness of the man he had ruined. After fourteen years of imprisonment (which was sometimes very harsh) Nikon was invited back to Moscow by a new Tsar, but he died on the way.

This is what happens to hierarchs who fool with Tradition. We are still feeling the effects of this today.

Alexandr

Zeeker - I do not ask for your "allegiance" or anyone else's - I am not a sovereign state. I do, however, suggest that you be sufficiently open-minded to read both sides of the discussion.

Fr. Serge

Even if the "tradition" is only 40 years old? I have several body parts older than that.

Dear Theist Gal,
If you seriously believe that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy is only 40 years old, then you are in drastic need of help on several levels. If you are simply confused, please look again - there are quite a few texts of the Divine Liturgy published in English which are at least twice that age (Isabel Hapgood's translation is a century old, and it was not the first by any means).

Father Serge

Father Serge, your blessing!

There are a number of posters here who have insisted that the texts and music promulgated must not be changed, as many parishioners have used them for 40 years - for example, "It is really not just to fiddle with something people have embraced and accepted for several generations now." This suggests that the bishops might be unjust, for example, in promulgating a common English translation for Eastern Catholics!

(Note: I am NOT suggesting that anyone here believes that, but I am drawing out the argument to its unfortunate conclusion. One should not WITHOUT GOOD REASON fiddle with something people have embraced and accepted for several generations. The concensus here seems to be that there is good reason, for example, to expect parishioners to accept longer services, more litanies, and so on, in order to have a fuller liturgical life - but they should not be expected to sing differently or hear different translations than they are used to. This will HAVE to be settled before we can have common liturgical texts.)

So untangling the issues of fidelity to the initial English translations and music used in the Pittsburgh Metropolia, fidelity to the work of the Ruthenian reform of the 1930's and 1940's, and fidelity to the broader "Byzantine tradition", would help.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I think that your post poses some excellent questions, not only for Father Serge but for others. Might I suggest that they be copied and started in a new thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Perhaps I'm confused, but one of the points of several of the posters in the past few weeks has been that "we've been using this translation for 40 years so why change now?". That's what I'm referring to.

Jeff,

Are you referring to my comments?

If yes, you’ve presented my beliefs incorrectly and your conclusion is a non sequitur. You seem to be conflating some of my beliefs with those (maybe?) of others.

I’ve stated my position at great length but maybe another summary of everything I have stated earlier is in order to make sure no one re-presents my beliefs incorrectly.


Translation and Rubrics

I believe that the English language editions of the Liturgicon and other liturgical books prepared and promulgated by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church should be as literally identical to the official Roman editions as is possible (while still being presented in elegant English).

The Liturgy is not ours to do what we want with and we do not have a right to change it as we please. The Liturgy belongs to the entire Byzantine Church (Orthodox and Catholic) and should only be changed by common agreement of the entire Church. Those elements of the Liturgy that belong only to the Ruthenian recension should only be changed by common agreement of those Churches that belong to the Ruthenian recension (Orthodox and Catholic).

The Vatican issued a Liturgical Instruction in 1996 directing us to prepare such common translations of our liturgical books with other Churches. Ideally, all Byzantine Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) would work together to produce a single text of the common texts and rubrics, including specific editions for each recension (Greek, Ruthenian, Russian, etc.). Of course this is not an ideal world and that day is probably a long time off. In the meantime it should be possible for all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Orthodox and Catholic) to produce common editions (two Orthodox bishops have spoken in support of such a project for a number of years). Since this project, too, would take a few years it seems pastorally prudent to reprint the current Liturgicon with corrections. [There is absolutely no pastoral sense in promulgating texts and rubrics that are purposeful changes away from the official texts and rubrics when we will someday (hopefully within 5-10 years) prepare (with the other Byzantine Churches) and use common texts and rubrics that are accurate to the official texts.]

Since the liturgical celebration in many parishes does not come anywhere near to the official “Ordo Celebrationis” directed by Rome (1942/1944) our Church should finally promulgate it as the standard and then spend the next generation restoring the fullness of the Ruthenian recension (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) to our parishes. Any thoughts of updating or revising should be put on hold until after we (as a Church) have been formed by the fullness of the Liturgy. People not only enjoy the Divine Services (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) when they are well done, they actually embrace it. Of course, when Liturgy is poorly done 15 minutes can be too long!


Music

I start with the premise that as Byzantine Catholics of the Ruthenian Church living in America we have no obligation whatsoever to retain Slavic chant. Our mission here is to convert all of (the non-Catholic / non-Orthodox) America to Jesus Christ and make Byzantine Catholics of each. Liturgical chant is vital to worship and must serve this goal. Further, any chant used must serve the English text (when people sing it we must come across as if English is our native language). We who are the inheritors of Ruthenian Chant have a great gift in our Prostopinije. Much of it (but not all) can be adapted without too much change to serve the English text. At some point we here in America will follow the example of the Slavs. They took Greek chant and turned into a new and wonderful gift that the various forms of Slavic chant and choral music have become. Byzantine Catholics in America will someday place a new and similar gift upon the altar alongside them. In the meantime quality English settings of Prostopinije are needed.

Fixed Texts - If this were the early 1960s and if I were one of those responsible for setting the text I would not have set some of the texts the way it was done. But this is not the early 1960s and the settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy have been accepted and embraced by our Church. Not every parish sings them identically. That is always going to be the case. They are not always notated correctly. That can be easily fixed. I believe that it is unjust to make unnecessary changes to musical settings that many people have sung all their lives. After 40 years of singing these arrangements it is not right to take them away from the people. For most of our people these settings are Prostopinije. Good pastoral sense needs to always be paramount.

Changeable Texts – Since changeable texts are used less often there is more room to adjust them. Some – like Alleluia Tone 4 and much of Holy Week – have become so well known and well accepted I simply would not change them at all. Others can be changed. Overall any adjustments to the style cannot be too different than that chosen for the 1960s fixed texts. There is ample room to be much more faithful to Boksaj if we (as a Church) wish but the melody must always serve the text (that is, any settings must have proper accentuation of the English texts).

For those who wish to read a more detailed account of what I have stated I suggest reading the second post in “A Discussion with Father David about Reform” .

---

Liturgical Worship (texts, rubrics and, yes, to a certain extent even music) is not fundamentally about man and should not be adapted to anyone’s individual taste. Worship is fundamentally about God. As long as we keep adapting our Liturgy to suit the taste of each generation we – as a Church – will wander in the desert.

John / Admin

And another classic example of the lack of charity on Byzcath!

Fr Serge, if you bothered to read any of Theist Gal's other posts you might realise that she is more than aware of the age of the Divine Liturgy. I would say that she may be more well read on this subject than you are giving credit. I find your attitude her in your reply as being arrogant.

Many of us do not have the years of liturgical experience and verstility of languages you possess, but as a priest you should at least try to be a help to others rather than putting them down by assuming one is in "drastic need of help on several levels."

Steve

Dear Steve,

Originally posted by Theist Gal:

I did not write that; I merely responded to it.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

I wasn't referring to your belief, but to your statement: if you mean that things should not be changed WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, say so! In fact, there is MUCH more variation in our parish singing (and liturgy, with significant differences between Pittsburgh and Passaic, for example, which your proposal does not address) than you seem to admit. Furthermore, perhaps 3/4 of our chant melodies from the Divine Liturgy alone did not even appear in the 1964 and 1970 collections, or differed between the two - and this music, while still around, is sung differently in every parish.

I generally agree with the proposals you made under Translation and Rubrics, and when preparing the Vespers and Matins books for the MCI, I actually asked and received permission for changes to the Uniontown books to bring us back into conformity with the Roman rubrics in a number of places, as well as restoring several litanies and prayers that the Sisters omitted. (Monomakh probably would call me a "Revisionist", but I HAVE been explaining the history of the 1944 Ordo to people and calling for its promulgation for 15 years or more. Our bishops made a number of changes to implement the 1996 Instruction, changes for which they receive little or no credit here; this should be remembered even as we ask them to complete the task.)

As to your proposals under Music: I disagree with them, for the same reason I agree with your first set of proposals. It takes a century or more to develop a chant tradition, especially one adapted to the complexities of the Byzantine liturgy. We have such a chant tradition - less complicated perhaps than the Galician music for the Divine Liturgy, but beautiful nonetheless, and widely praised in Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the same 1964 and 1970 editions that gave us a DRASTICALLY "chopped up" parochial liturgy gave us two different sets of music for the Divine Liturgy, which not only differed one from another, but even internally could not seem to use a melody twice without significantly altering it.

Like many other cantors, both parochial and monastic, I have been working toward restoring the chant melodies which were either mutilated or ignored by the clergy who set the 1960's and 1970's editions. Furthermore, I want to see our music in the hands of our people at worship, reducing the recent tendency for each cantor to have his own repertoire of music and his own interpretation of it, which the people must learn to follow if they hope to sing together.

The new music settings use the same melodies our grandparents sang, and the English accent has been respected throughout, by design. Your complaint so far SEEMS to be that there are simply too many notes on some words, even if those are key words; this for me is like saying there are too many litanies (at least when applied to the music in question, which is no where NEAR as complicated as, say, Gregorian chant). If you can find any places in the proposed settings where a "bad accent" occurs, or where an UNimportant word is highlighted above the important words nearby, or where the music stops in the middle of a phrase, I would like to know where they are.

I argue for the same "repristinization" to occur now, in our chant, was was provided for our text and rubrics in the 1940's. (The major difference between the two is that with music we have to look back 40 years, not 400.) I do not think this makes me a "Revisionist." The same reasons which allow for common, complete and correct liturgical translations, when the bishops provide them (God grant it be soon!), apply to their providing common, complete and correct settings of liturgical chant.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Swept away?

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

You wrote: ”I wasn't referring to your belief, but to your statement: if you mean that things should not be changed WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, say so!”

I have been saying so for a very long time. Please spend some time reading what I have posted about Liturgy on this forum.

Regarding your response to my comments on music, much of it is in agreement with what I have been doing for the past 25 years.

Our disagreements appear to be these:

1. I very much respect that we now have a 40 year tradition of singing the fixed texts a certain way in English and believe a desire to literally apply the Boksaj (and other Slavonic melodies) to the English text is not enough of a justification to force people to abandon English settings they have embraced for two generations. You have not responded to my repeated questions about this issue so I do not know your position. Can you please speak to this? (And not just in terms of how beautiful Boksaj is.)

As I have noted numerous times, the original settings in English were not notated correctly. This can be easily fixed. It is also quite easy to make simple modifications to the settings to accommodate corrections in the text.

2. I believe that since the chant always serves the text that it is OK to adjust the chant for reasons of proper accentuation of the English text. You say that you believe the same thing but I’m not sure you do. Your stated position seems to support a much more literal application of the Slavonic chant to the English text, one where proper accentuation of the English text oftentimes comes only after a literal preservation of the Slavonic chant. The evidence I have for this understanding is that you have strongly defended a setting that improperly accents the English text with an admittance that you might not set it that way in a new composition while also stating that at least the music is not compromised. Other evidence is that you appear to strongly defend other settings in which proper accentuation of English is sacrificed to obtain a literal adherence to the Slavonic melody.

You wrote: “Like many other cantors, both parochial and monastic, I have been working toward restoring the chant melodies which were either mutilated or ignored by the clergy who set the 1960's and 1970's editions. Furthermore, I want to see our music in the hands of our people at worship, reducing the recent tendency for each cantor to have his own repertoire of music, which the people must learn to follow if they hope to sing together.”

I’m not sure why you keep stating this in our conversations. Has some part of my work of the past 25 years in providing just this to 200 parishes who continue to ask for this material or anything I have stated in these discussions indicated that I am against the employment of Prostopinije or that I do not want to see the people with quality music in their hands for worship? Is it not possible for someone with a different premise (i.e., more faithfulness to proper accentuation that to the Slavonic melody) to want these same things?

You wrote: “Your complaint so far SEEMS to be that there are simply too many notes on some words, even if those are key words; this for me is like saying there are too many litanies (at least when applied to the music in question, which is no where NEAR as complicated as, say, Gregorian chant).”

Your summary is incorrect. I have very clearly stated my complaint. Please see my comments above.

To repeat, my specific complaint about the settings we have discussed is that they sacrifice proper accentuation of English text in order to be literally faithful to the Slavonic melody.

Please consider that it is not correct to place Boksaj at the same level of Holy Tradition as the Liturgy. Chant serves the Liturgy. Liturgy does not serve the chant.

You wrote: “If you can find any places in the proposed settings where a REAL ‘bad accent’ occurs, or where an UNimportant word is highlighted above the important words nearby, or where the music stops in the middle of a phrase, I would like to know where they are.

Any additional comments I have about these settings will be given directly to those in authority who are in positions to affect change.

John / Admin

I just realized that I have not responded to the original post about protest.

Pravoslavna most certainly has the right to protest in the manner he suggested. I would, however, suggest a different tactic. I would recommend a much more positive approach. Simply tell your pastor and bishop (and keep telling them) that you support a full embracement and restoration of the Ruthenian recension and that you are willing to help him (them) to attain that goal. Then match your actions to your intentions (meaning that as a minimum you should be participating regularly at Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy).

I have every belief that if enough people actually communicated their support for our Ruthenian liturgical tradition (and not the proposed alterations to it) it would become the norm in our Church.

John / Admin

I guess what bothers me about all this heated discussion is that I'm hearing a lot of the same rhetoric that I heard (albeit as a tiny little child ) back in the '60's and '70's about the "New Mass", culminating in a schism which hasn't been healed to this day.

It would be a shame to see the same thing happen in the Byzantine Church. Yet it does seem to be happening, and for basically the same reason - people assuming the worst possible motives of those they disagree with.

Maybe this time around we could try something radical -- like, for example, actually waiting for the official version of the revised liturgy to be published before protesting it?

Nahhh ...

Theist Gal,

I think you are incorrect on several counts.

Most of those posting here on both sides of the issue assume the best motives of those on the other side. Speaking for myself, I am friends with a few of those who support the revision (including priests, deacons and laymen). I know their motives and intentions to be good have continually stated so.

Good intentions and motives, however, are not enough.

We can see from the texts that have already been published (a copy of the October 2004 Draft was given to the clergy in some of our eparchies) that the texts and rubrics are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome. We can see that the liturgical rubrics currently promulgated in some eparchies are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome (and they came with statements by those in authority that the proposed forthcoming revision is very similar). Anyone who spends a few hours with the Roman editions and the Vatican directives to the Eastern Churches on Liturgy can easily see this for himself. So it is entirely appropriate and within the Catholic Tradition to raise questions about the faithfulness of this revision to what our Liturgy is supposed to be like. It is far better to understand what is proposed and ask for corrections to it before it is promulgated than it is to make corrections afterwards (even when viewed from the bishops perspective).

Always remember that the bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity share equally in the responsibility to preserve Holy Tradition. Liturgy is an important part of Holy Tradition and changes cannot be taken lightly.

You might wish to read up on the concept of “Sensus Fidelium”. The Holy Spirit actively leads the entire body of the Faithful (bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity) to actively protect and lead the Church.

Have you read my comments in A Discussion with Father David about Reform” (see the third post on page 1 of that thread). I think you will find that there is a lot of good material there that can bring you up to speed on these discussions.

John / Admin

That's undoubtedly true.

Perhaps, but I've seen enough uncharitable posts to say "many" rather than "most".

Quote:

Speaking for myself, I am friends with a few of those who support the revision (including priests, deacons and laymen). I know their motives and intentions to be good have continually stated so.

Good for you - then you are not one of the people I am criticizing.

Quote:

Good intentions and motives, however, are not enough.

No, but they're a good start.

Quote:

We can see from the texts that have already been published (a copy of the October 2004 Draft was given to the clergy in some of our eparchies) that the texts and rubrics are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome. We can see that the liturgical rubrics currently promulgated in some eparchies are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome (and they came with statements by those in authority that the proposed forthcoming revision is very similar). Anyone who spends a few hours with the Roman editions and the Vatican directives to the Eastern Churches on Liturgy can easily see this for himself. So it is entirely appropriate and within the Catholic Tradition to raise questions about the faithfulness of this revision to what our Liturgy is supposed to be like. It is far better to understand what is proposed and ask for corrections to it before it is promulgated than it is to make corrections afterwards (even when viewed from the bishops perspective).

Well, I haven't read them myself, being more partial to the novels of Fannie Flagg. However, I've spent a lot of time with someone vastly more familiar with the whole topic than myself, whose opinions I respect (as well as his fine self) . So I will show this to him and ask if I am on the wrong side in this debate.

Quote:

Always remember that the bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity share equally in the responsibility to preserve Holy Tradition. Liturgy is an important part of Holy Tradition and changes cannot be taken lightly.

You might wish to read up on the concept of “Sensus Fidelium”. The Holy Spirit actively leads the entire body of the Faithful (bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity) to actively protect and lead the Church.

Well, that all sounds very nice in theory. But the reality is that in the Catholic Church, if 99.9% of the laity thinks the bishops and the Pope are wrong about something, it don't mean diddly squat, because, as Joseph Ratzinger once pointed out, the Church is not a democracy. (Perhaps it should be - but that's another topic! )

Quote:

Have you read my comments in A Discussion with Father David about Reform” (see the third post on page 1 of that thread). I think you will find that there is a lot of good material there that can bring you up to speed on these discussions.

John / Admin

No offense, but I've read just about all the threads on this topic I can stand for a while and am going to take some time off and visit Cute Overload for the rest of the day. Thanks and God bless!

John - thanks for your response.
I believe I have answered every question as clearly as I can, but let me try one more time.

1. The original chant settings in 1964 were truncated. They not only "trimmed" the melodies, but did so in ways which did not respect the existing organization of the chant melodies, and obscured the fact that some texts are sung to the SAME melody (such as prokeimena and alleluia). Most of the body of chant was omitted, meaning that every cantor developed his own versions. Furthermore (according to Monsignor Levkulic) the available typesetting capabilities forced the music to be set in fixed meter; the music was CHANGED the fit the meter.

2. The 1970 revisions removed the fixed meter, but kept some of the metric changes, while changing others a second time. The same melody was sung with a different rhythm in different places, and notes were added or deleted with no apparent scheme. Some music was added back to the repertoire, but by then many cantors simply kept the versions they had already notated. This music was never distributed to the people.

3. A variety of cantors have tried to "fix" the melodies; even your settings, John, seem to continue to develop.

Given this history, and the fact that there are WIDE variations in singing all over the Metropolia, I believe a setting of English texts to the original prostopinije melodies, only keeping the 1964 melodies where they are NEW MUSIC, makes sense. There are no such thing as "Slavonic melodies" and "English melodies"; the chant is an organized BODY of melodies, and has its own rules for what to add or leave out when adapting music to fit text. Individual chant settings must respect the English word and phrase accent, but either a melody should be adapted according to the logic of the chant tradition, or that melody should be abandoned and another used in its place.

You are not the only one who believes this. The Music Commission did this time and time again in their settings, as did the Cantor Institute in working on Vespers and Matins.

What they did not do was simply omit a note here, a note there, half-randomly from one place to the next, or remove all the runs of several notes, as was done in 1964. This "simplification" ("dumbing down") respected neither the chant melodies, nor the people who sang them. They were an "easy way out", just as the same booklet dropped most of the litanies.

We have discussed ONE example on this subject - the singing of "Now" on 4 notes. "Now" is a key word in the text, one of several; in the proposed music, it is sung for 6 beats, the same number of beats as "and ever" and the same number as "and forever." I don't see that it's unbalanced.

Then why did I say I might do it differently if I were writing the text myself? Because one of the primary sources of beauty in English prose is the variability of prosodic feet. If I were WRITING the text, I would have added a syllable to make the number of syllables grow gradually (telescope) through the phrase:

Both NOW | and EVer | and forEVer

Every foot is different. But this has NOTHING to do with whether the accent is bad _for the liturgical doxology_; it has to do with prosody.

Your own solution, as I recall, was to repeat the text:

Now and EVer | and EVer | and forEVer

Not only to does repetition NOT particularly respect the text (!) but this would make "Now" the LEAST important major word in the line, getting only one beat, while turning the phrase into 4 principal parts, which no longer balances the Trinity in the preceeding phrase.

Summary: it may be that you're listening to words and I'm listening to phrases. But the techniques I and others used in setting prostopinije DO preserve English accents - following the existing rules and examples from the prostopije chant to resolve problems, rather than simply dropping a note here or there.

We're only discussed one. As I stated, more than half the time a chant melody MUST be adjusted to make the accents fit - and the Music Commission did this while keeping the melodic line fo the chant, as have I (though anyone can make mistakes). What are these settings of which you speak?

So far you have cited precisely one example, and declined to provide others.

In which places does the proposed music CLEARLY treat the text improperly?

I'm sorry if I have caused you any hardship, as I have counted you as a friend and continue to do so. But I would like to see you back up your statements.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff writes that:

Let's not be absurd; there are certainly English melodies: Greensleeves and Barbara Allen come to mind at once. If you'ld like examples of English chant melodies, try Merbecke's setting of the Communion service, or what is commonly called "Anglican chant", or Presbyterian settings for the Psalms.

As to Slavic melodies, I could name scores, but I don't have all night. Rimsky-Korsakov worked some into his justly famous Russian Easter, as well as his magnificent choral Vigil.

Almost every culture I can think of has produced music which is formative and typical of that culture - this is hardly news.

I am not saying that it is forever impossible to transpose music from one language to another; it's been done frequently - sometimes with brilliant success. It doesn't always work, just as attempts to anglicize magnificent Chinese poetry are nearly unbearable.

Fr. Serge

Jeff,

Thanks for your post. You continue to answer questions that I am not asking and speak to other issues.

Here’s what I’m looking for in a response:

“I acknowledge that our Church sung and embraced certain settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy (Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, Cherubic Hymn, and etc.) for the past 40 years. Even though they have been the standard for two generations now I believe that the people should be forced to change something they have accepted and memorized because… (and then give your justification).”

It sounds like your justification for forcing people to change hymns they know and love is simply because you seek a very literal application of Boksaj (and the other Slavonic melodies) to these texts. [The Church has every right to alter, simplify or even abandon Boksaj if it better serves the task that Divine Worship has in proclaiming the Gospel. I am not advocating such but I recognize the right of the Church to do this.]

Your answer to this question (as I have phrased it above) is very important. I am trying to understand the premise of this new approach to setting chant. At the moment I believe it to be flawed.

I am thinking now that you simply want a very literal adherence to Boksaj (and the other Slavonic sources) and that to get that you are willing to see the people forced to change the fixed hymns of the Divine Liturgy that they have embraced for two generations.

John

Bold added by moi in the following quotes:

and

Okay, well, over in the Roman Church we've had the "Novus Ordo" for about 40 years as well. Two generations have grown accustomed to hearing Father begin every Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this celebration of the Eucharist! Did you know 'Eucharist' means 'giving thanks'?" 40 looonnng years ... two looonnnngg generations ... but we can't change it, right? After all, most people are used to it, and don't even realize there's any other way to begin a Mass. Why shake them up now, after all this time?

According to Jeff's response in another thread, the basic principles we have been seeking to discuss were outlined in the MCI Sunday Vespers Book. I had a few moments to spare this morning and, being completely frustrated with the circular conversation that seems to be continuing in this new thread, I decided to take a quick look.

Lest I again be subjected to a lack of integrity and Christian charity via another unfounded allegation (for which, I am disappointed to report, I have still received no apology), I have quoted that section in its entirety so that it cannot be said that the information was misrepresented:

While this publication was not published by the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission (IEMC), it was published by the Metropolitan Cantor's Institute (MCI) "following faithfully the principles adopted by the IEMC."

Based on that assertion, I am going to assume that the principles outlined in the Forward of this MCI text are a reflection of the principles used by the IEMC in their work.

Now (or “Now-ow-ow-ow," if you prefer) that I've read this statement, the premise given that Bokšaj's work constitutes some prescription for "canonical melody" for the Divine Services is one that I do not agree with.

Just because Bokšaj was the first printed collection of Ruthenian/Carpathian Plain Chant does not give it a status in music equal to that of Dolnytsky or Mikita with regard to the Divine Services. In other words, Bokšaj is not the Typikon for Carpathian Plain Chant.

Does that mean that we cannot chose to preserve some of the melodies in Bokšaj for use when singing in English? Of course not; some of these melodies are rich and beautiful, and it makes sense to keep them as parts of the lives of the Faithful where the Church Slavonic melody (or variation thereof) can serve the English text well.

There is no good reason, however, to "force" a literal adherence to Bokšaj in English where it does not make sense: where the melody does not serve the text well -or- where there are already common melodies in place (albeit that they may be simplifications of Bokšaj or other Church Slavonic sources) that have already been "codified" by common usage in our Metropolia.

John,

I'm afraid your drafted response doesn't work for me , because your own publications show that there has not been a consistent standard for chant practice over the last 40 years - unless you restrict the chant to the Ordinary of the Divine Liturgy. In order to actually sing Matins and Vespers, we need both better and more consistent chant resources in English. (Even the Vespers books I traded for that copy of Ratisn omit music for 80% of the text, requiring that the cantor AND the people (who are supposed to sing the stichera) know the samohlosen tones by heart. The melodies we're been using in English aren't consistent enough for that.)

As far as the ordinary parts of the Divine Liturgy, which you recommended we focus on, I think that (probably out of ignorance) you don't realize exactly what the changes are. I will write them up in another thread titled '"New" liturgical music for the Divine Liturgy," and we can discuss them there.

In the meantime, since you have said there are MANY bad accents in the linked text that started this, I would appreciate if you'd list them, so everyone can get a feel for what you're talking ab out.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Cantor JKF,

The basic principle I was referring to is in the second paragraph:
For my part, I stand by that, and am still waiting for you or anyone who likes to point out any serious problems with English accentuation in the music on the MCI website, or in the Divine Liturgy music linked a few days ago.

By canonical melody is meant, in this case, the melodies used by tradition, especially those in each of the eight tones. (Webster's Collegiate: "conforming to a general rule or acceptable producedure: ORTHODOX".) Gardner's Russian Church Singing uses the word in the specific sense of that church singing which sets each text to the proper tone.

(By the way, there IS a reason for mentioning Boksaj in the article you quote: it indicates, basically, that we will be using the Mukachevo variant of the chant, which almost all our parishes use today (according to a survey done several years ago), rather than the Presov melodies more commonly use by the Carpatho-Russians, and represented in Papp 1970.)

The 1906 Prostopinije codified melodies which had been in use for many years. This is authenticated by the fact that several further collections of chant in Europe and America, intended as reference works for already-trained cantors, make great use of it as a source-work, seldom changing a melody, but adding new ones. Furthermore, the 1906 book was prepared and promulgated under episcopal authority - the only such case of which I am aware.

The funny thing is that the mention of the 1906 Prostopinije in the text you quote (which I think you will have to admit must be read in conjuction with the direct statement from the Music Commission which I also quoted, in which Boksaj is not even mentioned) is IMMEDIATELY followed by a list of exceptions - the texts which were set to traditional melodies that do not appear in Bokshai.

"Canonical" in the conclusion does NOT mean "according to Boksaj", or there would not have been all of those exceptions. (And there are a few more at Matins, where Boksaj doesn't even HAVE melodies.) The Music Commission went over the chant melodies used in Slavonic (and English) from across the Archeparchy and chose melodies to use in its settings - making them consistent in many cases, but changing existing English settings as little as possible where consistency was not a primary issue. One can see this simply from looking at the music taught all last year at the Seminary - which I will talk about if we can get past your incorrect claim of "strict adherence to Boksaj."

The body of prostopinije, as you say you know, includes many works, some very dependent on Boksaj, some less so. But in all of these, the principal was firm: almost every melody has an exemplar, which should be followed, for consistency's sake. The exemplars and cognates showed how the music was to be applied to various kinds of texts. This family of chant has MORE than enough flexibility to set almost any text for a troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, or sticheron, without distorting the melodic line, while still retaining correct accent, phrase and expression. Using the melodies this way makes them easier to learn and sing, and allows the mind to concentrate on the text rather than on which variant of tropar tone 1 the next phrase uses. THAT is how the music serves the text.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Once again you have talked around the issue.

Let me try one final time to get your reasoning for forcing change to the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy (Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, and etc.).

Can you start your next post with:

“I, Jeff, understand that the people have sung the fixed English settings for the Divine Liturgy for 40 years. I acknowledge that they are well accepted and enthusiastically sung in many places and could be sung well everywhere. I believe, however, that the people should be forced to abandon these common settings which have served us well for two generations because … (add then add your explanation).”

That’s the information I’m looking for. Your reluctance to provide it suggests that you know that the texts put a literal adherence to Boksaj (and other Slavonic sources) first and proper accentuation of the English text a distant second.

I can respect a decision not to answer the question. If that is your choice please just say so and we can end this discussion.

John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

My reluctance comes from the fact that you're putting words in my mouth.

I serve in two parishes here. In both of them, the priest provides your music. Of five cantors, I am the ONLY one who uses it (and that just for the prokeimenon, which is what I usually sing.) We have the 1964 music in front of us but do NOT sing it anything like it is written; we follow "Scranton area custom", which differs from "Pittsburgh custom", and somewhat from "Passaic custom". I can adapt to any of them, and the people are usually not bad at following one or the other. But we do NOT have common melodies; yours differ from 1970 standard, which differ from Jerry Jumba's, etc. etc. In most parishes, people do NOT have music in front of them, and follow as best they can.

You have said we need a standard, that there are problems with the existing settings, and that the troparia and other hymns are not consistently set. These three facts drive most of my opinions. To begin my response as you propose would misrepresent both by beliefs, and reality.

As I said, I will answer in the other thread I mentioned.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

I am asking these questions for a particular purpose. I am hoping that eventually you (or anyone associated with these proposed changes) will answer them.

I have audio recordings dating from the mid-1970s to earlier this month in which parishes sing the settings for the fixed texts in English with obvious affection and great gusto. [You yourself even complimented the people of St. George Parish in Aliquippa for their singing of these settings.] These settings work. People can and do raise the roof when they sing them. Why would anyone take from the people something that they know and love? That would be the height of pastoral insensitivity.

Yes, there are places where the singing is not great, and where the common settings are sung a bit (or a lot) differently. That is not the fault of the standard (our settings for the fixed parts of the Liturgy in English). If the standard was at fault no one would raise the roof using it (and we can see very easily that parishes do raise the roof singing the common standard for the fixed texts). The answer to parishes with less than great singing is not to abandon the standard for another one but to train the priests, cantors and congregations what good Liturgy is and how to attain it.

John

PS: I have never changed a note of the settings for the fixed texts (from the BLC / 1970 book). If there are differences in notation for the fixed texts in my publications they are typos. What I have changed is the settings for the changeable texts where they didn’t work in the BLC. But even here I have not made changes to well know changeable texts (Prokimenon and Alleluia tone 4, for example). But this discussion is not about the changeable texts.

PPS: Please stop bringing speaking about the issues with the changable texts. We are discussing only the settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy. We can have that discussion separately.

John,

As promised, see my answer under "'New' liturgical music for the Divine Liturgy."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. I promise to defer the discussion of changeable texts per se, but must continue to advert to situations where our settings of melodies for the Divine Liturgy affect the singing of the same melodies at Vespers and Matins, or vice versa.

I reviewed the whole new litergy. Here is how I see it.

The Litany is changed and has a great new addition and inclusion of the Theotokos, the second half is very simular to our present format and worship. They improved the Creed with the exclusion of the Holy Spirt not of the Father and Son but of the Father only. The flow of the liturgy is the same.

So my vote is confidence in the high patriarchy and their decisions in these changes. I am excited to get it going in our church!

Dear Stivvy,

What of the deletions of the 2nd and third verses of the antiphons? What of the "for us and for our salvation?" What of "lover of us all" for "who loves mankind?" What of the omitted litanies? What of the "Master, Bless?" What of "holy gifts for holy people?"


P.S. I appreciate that you took the time to read it, but I wonder what you think of the aforementioned problems.

Do any of these things actually change church doctrine?

Dear Theist Gal,

It's a shame you don't know the difference between celebrating an abbrivated version of the Divine Liturgy, and a full version. Between the litanies that have been made optional, plus the Antiphons that have been removed, this liturgy will not resemble the liturgy that many parishes have celebrated for years. Mine included.

So, in your eyes, as long as it doesn't monkey with church doctrine, we're o.k.? If the priest asked someone to carry a bowl filled with incense on their head, as long as it didn't monkey with doctrine it would be o.k.?

The reason many of us who understand our tradition are considering becoming Orthodox is because of attitudes like yours. You should challenge your spirituality by visiting an Orthodox Church. During the Liturgy, remind yourself that "ours" should be just like "theirs." Once you have this understanding and experience, I think you'll feel differently. Additionally, you may want to read the Light for Life series to educate yourself a little more.

I'll end with a quote by the esteemed Robert Taft,
"Liturgy is the very mouth of the church, not just its lipstick.”

JMHO, Cathy

No, I'm no expert in the Divine Liturgy. All I'm saying is that none of the actual changes I've seen so far seem to be worth all the angst and hysteria I've seen on the Forum. Sure, some of them may be a little annoying, and/or take time to get used to, but they hardly involve any bowls of incense on anyone's heads.

And from what I've been told by someone who IS an expert in the Divine Liturgy, there have been changes to the Liturgy in the past, and there will undoubtedly be changes in the future - these changes are definitely not going to be set in stone!

(And by the way, I have actually sung in the choir at an Orthodox Church. Recently. And it's very nice. But I'm still a Catholic. So there. :p )

I'm sorry, but it is remarks like this that make me realize that there are many who are not even aware of what they are throwing away. This is so sad......


Alexandr

(sigh)

Okay, I don't want to make anyone sad, so I'm officially bowing out of this topic.

But before I do, I would just like to say that being rude and patronizing is not going to win a lot of people over to your point of view.

Bye!

Question all,
I'm transposing "On Eagle's Wings" into Prostopenije. Do you think it will sound better in Stichera tone 6 or 8? It could be a substitute for the Cherubimic Hymn. After all, it won't change dogma now, will it?

Alexandr

Dear Alexander - I'll bet you think you're joking. I could name a parish where Budi Imia Hospodnie to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean" is high on the sacred hit parade. And no doubt you've heard Mnohaia L'ita to the tune of "Santa Lucia". There's more where that came from!

Fr. Serge

You know what's funny...

I've read the topic of this post several times, and each time I've mis-read it to be:

Protestant revision of your Divine Liturgy!

I kept wondering what the Protestants had to do with it?

Oh, if you only knew how close you are!!!!

Alexandr

I also bet that if you removed Icon screens (AGAIN), Had the priest face the people, and RECITE the Liturgy most people would still stay... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

....and they will stay because the people who know better will head for the hills. And then eventually when all the Byzantine Churches turn into Roman Catholic Churches it will be o.k. because they won't know any better.

Cathy

Recited Divine Liturgies will soon be a reality in a lot of small parishes(Ruthenian Metropolia), as many do not have cantors and that is a real shame.

Ungcsertezs

C'mon people! Where's the strong posts of protest? It's so easy to derail a thread that has such promise like this one. Is outrage that there is less outrage! Burn those calories in angry protest!!! Raise your blood pressure over an issue you have no real control over! Send your checks for Fr. Serge's book. Read it through and through. Run to the Orthodox church where everything is perfect! Don't lose steam now....page 3 was going so strong, what happened?

While "on Eagles Wings" in being set to prostopinije tone 9, make the full revision and translate it into Latin! Revise the proposed liturgy revision with your own "hit parade" of cover versions to suit every fancy.

Seriously, this thread started off with a well thought out proposition (of which I don't agree with all the points), and like most threads on this topic of topics has degenerated into the usual silliness surrounding this debate.

in response to the original post:
1) after telling your priest you don't want the DL revised, what can he do that you haven't already done? Withholding your tithe will only close your parish faster.
2) Write you Eparch first before step 1. There is more at stake.
3) Perhaps this should be step 1.
4) presuming you obtain actual copies of the proposed liturgy rather than initial documents which can and will be disputed. Little litanies were lost in Parma/Van nuys back in the 70's folks.
5) support Fr Serge's efforts to control our heirarchs and buy his book with the money you saved by not tithing.
6) when the revised liturgy arrives in your parish, take time to actually try it before you throw it away. The advice given in the original post amounts to 'don't vote in November, the outcome won't change'.

Yes our dear priests will likely have no choice in the matter but close the parish because their parishioners left without first seeing what the change was really about. As to speaking out with impunity, I know from experience that it does come back to haunt you. Will it be "too late" once the revision comes out? There has been change before , there will continue to be change after.

One can already check out other churches without waiting for the revision. If you are anxious to leave the Pittsburgh Metropolia for Orthodox jurisdictions, don't let the spectre of a translation change get in your way.

Steve
(Since this thread will most likely be edited/removed it is also posted on my blog)

Not everywhere in Parma. We take them per the Liturgikon. You were there.
FDD

p.s. Don't you think is a bit ridiculous? And you wonder why your posts get "edited/deleted"? Anyone commenting on liturgy would be in the same boat, by that broad brush.

I agree, FDD.

Without attempting in any way, shape or form to speak for Father Serge, I would guess that, while he probably appreciates people reading his book, he has no illusions about exercising any control whatsoever over the hierarchs. If anything, he has appealed to reason, tradition and history in questioning the liturgy that is evidently going to be promulgated at some point. If the hierarchs allow themselves to be influenced by his appeal to these things, IMHO he is not controlling them, but rather reminding them of something they already know.

Let us not lose hope in running the race!

Gordo

In a week and a half I'll be Orthodox. I grew up in the BCC. After reading about the Union of Uzhorod,(of which there is no written record), Brest-Litovsk, Father Toth, Father Chornock, Bishop Ireland, Bishop Tackach, Ea Semper, Cum Data Fuerit, Revised Liturgy , minimal to no Slavonic, et al, enough is enough. We will never be fully EASTERN under Rome.

I'm not saying the Orthodox church doesn't have It's problems. BUT, WEEKLY VESPERS,(45 minutes), Divine Liturgy (90 minutes), STANDING during the Liturgy, some Slavonic every Sunday, works for me. It's the full EASTERN expression.

I hope it eventually works out for the EC churches, but has history taught us anything?

You are correct. Your parish is one of the few that does the full recension. I had meant that since the 70's in general there had been a softening of the liturgical usage of litanies in what was then the Parma Eparchy and is now the Van Nuys Eparchy.

I seem to do poorly at written satire though. I should just stay away from Byzcath as it no longer seems healthy for me to read or post here.

Steve

Control the hierarchs? Me? Allow me to assure everyone that there is no hierarch, in this world or the next, who is in any sense subject to my control! There are a few hierarchs who have the misfortune to be friends of mine and who, on that basis, would probably be kind enough to give me a hearing on some issues, but that's as far as it goes.

Then again, I'm not much of a control freak - I can't even control the dog, let alone the cat. The books in my library often seem to lead wild, free lives of their own.

Even Pope Benedict XVI has remarked more than once that he cannot control the whole Church - and since there are more-or-less 3,000 hierarchs at any given moment, I would take it for granted that His Holiness cannot control them all, though he can certainly call a bishop to order (which is normally done in private).

Come to think of it, I can't really control the TV set. If I could, my favorite programs would not be interrupted by commercials.

Fr. Serge

Bless Father

C'mon, let's be serious. All of this is entirely your fault! Let's blame Fr Serge, because if he hadn't made the attempt to educate people, this nasty disagreement could have been avoided and everyone could have went meekly into neo-latin ambiguity. And it is a well known fact that Fr Serge keeps ALL the bishops on a short leash, and only lets them outside twice a day to do their business! I would love to gather up some of these folks and lock them in Solovki until they realize what they are throwing away. Maybe a winter of full services would do them some good. Besides, when it's 40 degrees below outside, nothing beats pokloni to keep warm!

A slightly tonque in cheek Alexandr

Steve, I guess I am just not getting it - it is somewhat difficult to make out your "satire" above on one hand when you make other statements like on the other to those who disagree with the revisions.

With Alexandr, on the other hand, it is a bit easier to figure out...
FDD

Etnick,

I certainly don't fault anyone for desiring to be more Eastern!

But I don't think you are being entirely fair to Rome or to Eastern Catholics, for that matter.

To be sure, there are reasons for bitterness on both sides, as has been covered here on this forum innumerable times. Unfortunately, the history of our ancestors (spiritual or physical) is completely out of our, Rome's or...even Fr. Serge's :p ) control!

If Rome has been anything since the Second Vatican Council, it has been encouraging of Eastern Catholics to recover our traditions, even in its own often stumbling ways. Various hierarchs, clergy and laity over the years have had varying levels of responses to the call for renewal. Some have responded well, while others have not. Such is the nature of change.

The bottom line? The Metropolia of Pittsburgh is faced with the decision to largely deconstruct its liturgical tradition, quite apart from any reference to other Byzantine jurisdictions within Orthodoxy or Catholicism, and quite at odds with Rome's directives for all liturgical translations. Thus far, thank God, it appears that the decision to promulgate is being held in abeyance. Let us hope that wiser heads prevail and hold off until a pan-jurisdictional English speaking effort can begin.

Returning to your decision, the last time I visited St. Paul/Minneapolis, Bishop Ireland was quite stone cold and lying passively in his tomb. Do you really want to use him and his scandalous reign over a century ago as part of your rationale for leaving?

And what of Slavonic? I attend a church that does not use - nor has ever used - Slavonic. Is that a reason to leave for Orthodoxy? Some jurisdictions there do not use Slavonic either.

I am curious what you read about the Union of Brest. Was it Borys Gudziak's fine work, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitinate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of the Union of Brest?

And to the best of my knowledge, there are no existing original texts of the Bible, either. But it does not prevent me from believing it to be inspired according to the teachings and canons of the Church.

And what of those centers of authentic Orthodox spiritual renewal within Eastern Catholic jurisdictions, such as Saint Elias in Canada, Holy Transfiguration in McClean, VA, Annunciation in Homer Glen, IL, Holy Resurrection Monastery in California and (praise God!) Holy Theophany Monastery in Washington state, etc etc etc (not to mention Father Serge's mission in Dublin as well as other wonderful locations throughout the world). Is your charge entirely fair that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be fully Eastern and fully Catholic?

I beg to differ.

Yes - the cumulative effect of stupidity and scandal over the years can create an almost irresistable momentum towards Orthodoxy. But, as you mention, they are not perfect as well.

The Orthodox Church has many fine and wonderful (and HOLY) people in it, some of whom are here on this forum. But sometimes Catholicity is a cross - it would be much easier to make the leap. I guess I hold out hope that I can become an Orthodox Christian and still remain in union with Rome, as the fathers teach us.

Blessings,

Gordo

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

Unfortunately many against the revisions seem to be unable to respond charitably to others who do not see them as major, like Stivvy, or have a wait and see approach, like Theist Gal. Both Cathy and Alexandr talked down to both of them, assuming that if anyone agrees with or is not upset about the revisions then that person must not know our tradition and doesn't know what they are talking about. That is the lack of charity that Steve is talking about and it is sad people aren't calling others out for it because they agree with their position.

Ironically, Cathy closes one of her posts with a quote from Archimandrite Robert Taft, the very man who reviewed and approved the revisions and recommended the inclusive language.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

You find it ironic that Cathy closed her post with a quote from Father Taft, who, according to you, has expressed his approval of the revisions.

I find it ironic that no one has produced an authenticated quote from Father Taft to that effect. I'm in the process of writing something else, and I should like to quote Father Taft on a specific point. But until and unless I can find and quote the exact citation, I shall not use it, even though I know that he wrote what I have in mind.

If you consider it uncharitable to consider that a direct, authenticated quote is much more creditable than unverified indirect discourse, I shall have to live with it.

Father Serge

Dear Father,

Your point is well taken, however, Cathy's uncharitableness was not in quoting Fr. Taft but in her condescending attitude towards and patronization of Theist Gal and the criticism still stands.

As to my information I got it from Fr. Steven Hawkes-Teeples, professor of liturgics at the Pontifical Oriental Institute and former director of the Pittsburgh Archeparchial deacon formation program. I have no reason to doubt his veracity.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I just ask this question, would you want a non-Byzantine to tell you your look-alike Vatican II liturgy is o.k.? When a person leaves their church, and officially joins the Byzantine Church and has something to lose, then we'll talk.

For the life of me I cannot understand why Fr. Taft has o.k.'d inclusive language. That I will never understand, and perhaps Fr. Serge could explain why a scholar would want to take that approach to bringing the Liturgy "down," instead of lifting it up. Again, Fr. Taft's quote is right on -- the Liturgy is the mouth of the church. What does this new translation say about the Byzantine Church? You can draw your own conclusions.

Always, JMHO
Cathy

Cathy,

So rather than admit you were unkind to Theist Gal you'll make excuses why it is okay to be uncharitable.

Theist Gal cannot have an opionion because she is not a Byzantine Catholic, yet Alexandr who is not one either can because he agrees with you?

You were uncharitable to Theist Gal, period. You can defend your opinion, you can never defend lack of charity. You owe Theist Gal and Stivvy an apology.

Fr. Deacon Lance

So, let me get this straight. Father Taft is a supporter of inclusive language, and wants our Church to abandon the Ruthenian Recension, inventing our own new version.

He told Father Hawkes-Teeples this, and Father Hawkes-Teeples told you. And on that basis I should think this is a good idea?

Don't you think that before our Church makes a move as important as this, we should all have the benefit of consulting Father Taft's position, and see this opinion in writing?

Nick

It's equally sad that false and uncharitable statements such as those I referred to are made by the supporters under the guise of "satire" yet those in opposition needs to be "called out" or are "uncharitable". Those decrying the lack of charity seem to be able to resort to same. It's gone both ways.
FDD

"And on that basis I should think this is a good idea?"

Absolutley not. I am opposed to inclusive language, Fr Taft's support of it does not change my position.


"Don't you think that before our Church makes a move as important as this, we should all have the benefit of consulting Father Taft's position, and see this opinion in writing?"

Ideally, people would study the facts and seperate those from a scholar's leanings be they Fr. Robert's, Fr. Serge's, Fr. David's, Fr. Alexander's, Fr. Thomas', Archbishop Jospeh's or Pope Benedict's. Individual positions are irrelevant.

But that is beside the point. The Church is a hierarchy, not a democracy, which many here seem to forget. We don't get to review this and that and vote on what we want. The laity (and non-episcopal clerics) most certainly have the right to make their feelings and wishes known, they do not have a vote or veto however.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"It's equally sad that false and uncharitable statements such as those I referred to are made by the supporters under the guise of 'satire'"

It was Alexandr who started the satire with the "on Eagle's Wing" quip. Etnick is the one who announced he is leaving the BCC. Fr. Serge is the one who chosen to involve himself in this debate in our Metropolia. Trying to control the hierarchs is the wrong wording, but obviously Fr. Serge hopes his book has some effect on the hierarchs (or the priests to whom it was sent) who can promulgate the new liturgy.

I would also state that I ahve yet to see anyone other than Fr. Dave state he is a supporter of the revisions. I have seen a few who have said lets wait and see and this won't be the end of the world. that is a far cry from being a supporter. But many of the opponents of the revision identify anyone who does not share their opinion as a supporter of the revision and deride and belittle them as Cathy and Alexandr did.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Again I'll point to the derision of those who are not favorable to the revision above, and I'll stick to my observation that the "uncharitable" has ebbed and flowed both ways per my previous post.
FDD

Uncharitable, unschmaritable.

I went back and re-read Cathy and Alexandr's posts, and I don't find them mean.

What would a mean post be like? "Your mama wears combat boots!" I think that would be mean.

A vigorous disagreement, and the occasional expressed frustrations that go along with our love for the liturgy, are _not_ mean.

Let's be grownups and realize that argument in the search for truth is a contact sport, and let's not get our feelings hurt.

Dear Deacon Lance,

On this we are in absolute agreement. Traditionally speaking, the bishops are the guardians of our tradition, and should be always calling us to be faithful to it! And we certainly don't get a vote about that.

However, what is an ordinary Byzantine Catholic in the pews supposed to do, when the Bishops (and the committees they appoint) seem ready to abandon the tradition?

I heard that a bishop has said he "had to" promulgate the Liturgy! Astounding! His excuse was that the committee had done all its work, and a bishop didn't have the right to veto it, in fact he was only going to sign the Revised Liturgy (which he didn't like) because he had to.

So what does that do to the idea that we're a hierarchy, and should rely on our bishops to guard the tradition?

Nick

Father Deacon Lance accurately states that there have been uncharitable posts on the side of those who support the traditional Liturgy.

Father Deacon Lance should also have been balanced enough to also state that there have been uncharitable posts on the side of those who support revising the Liturgy (or at least think it wrong to question those proposing the revision).

Steve P and Jim from Arizona seem to define uncharitableness as any opinion that differs from theirs.

Jeff has been uncharitable at times, but at least he has spoken from conviction.

Theist Gal has been uncharitable in putting down those discussing the revisions, making specific negative comments about those who oppose the revisions and then admitting that she has not bothered to even read anything about the revisions.

Joe Thur repeatedly made specific and false accusations against clergy who did not agree with his opinion (assuming malicious intent, questioning everything and offering nothing).

Father David (who has not posted recently) has been uncharitable in his non-responses to real questions and his emotional declaration of “war” when it would be better to offer good scholarship.

Even Father Deacon Lance himself has been uncharitable in his postings. He surely remembers a time earlier in the year when he repeatedly accused me of being disloyal merely because I argue for embracing our tradition and against something that is still a proposal (and in no way official). Even in this thread his posts about Father Serge are false and misleading (Father Serge did his scholarly review at the request of our own Ruthenian clergy – he certainly did not choose “to involve himself in this debate”).

So I remind everyone that the lapses of charity do occur on both sides.

John,

Perhaps I am biased, but as I am not on either side in this debate I don't think I am. From my view, lately the anti-revisionists have been very uncharitable as witnessed in this recent thread. Uncharitableness in the past on the part of their opponents does not excuse their posts today.

As to Fr. Serge, did the Ruthenian clergy twist Fr. Serge's arm till he promised to right his critique? He could have refused. He chose to involve himself, to state so is neither false nor uncharitable. Now who is being uncharitable?

If in the past I have been uncharitable to you I ask for forgiveness and will endevor to remain charitable in my posts as should we all.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

you know as well as I that Aleksandr wasn't being uncharitable or false in the Eagles Wings post. He was simply demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. The fact that you've resorted to screaming 'uncharitable' and 'false' in a crowded room shows that what he said has a lot of merit.

It is ashame that Etnick is leaving our church, but by bringing this up strays from the issue at hand which is the revisionist liturgy. If Etnick says the sky is blue are we all to question that the sky is blue now because he is leaving? Even if he was joining the Hare Krishnas, if his statements have truth then they have truth.

The Admin already stated that Fr. Serge didn't just insert himself into this, and furthermore what he says is what should be debated and not what jurisdiction he is under, maybe your not doing this, but when you resort to saying that he is out of jurisdiction you are making many believe that you have run out of arguments to make and end up conceding that Fr. Serge is correct.


Father Deacon Lance, plain and simple, there are some important questions that should be asked here.

Why only one verse antiphons? What's the harm in putting in at least three if not more.

Why cut out praying for 'an angel of peace' and all of the other 'Podaj Hospodi' petitions?

Why don't we listen to JPII and Pope Benedict's words to go back to our Orthodox Traditions?

Why are we moving farther away from our Greek Catholic Brethern with this translation?

Why are we obsessed with being in and out of church in under an hour?

Why don't we have complete restoration in all of our churches of Vespers and Matins?

I don't see anything uncharitable about asking these and many other questions. Most of us are adults and over 21. Let's have an open and honest discussion.

I'm not going to resort to screaming 'uncharitable' and 'false', but I will say that someone like J. Michael Thompson has given Philadelphia Lawyer like answers on here. When he says that the liturgy posted on here wasn't (and I'm paraphrasing) the liturgy that will be promulgated, well is that false? Answer: No. But he knew that that was the liturgy that was recorded for distribution and contained many parts of what will be promulgated. Once real quesoitns came out, he disappeared. Now he's under no obligation technically to answer us on here, but does he think that many of us aren't on to his game?

Like the Admin wrote, Father David has called this open warfare when all this has been is a discussion of the revision being put forward. That's not charitable is it?

Father David has called us all something along the lines of 'Liturgical Fundamentalists'. Well come to think of it never mind that one, (and I'm only speaking for myself) that's a compliment.

mc

Dear Father Deacon,
I am not seriously angry at you nor offended by you - we simply happen to disagree about part of the matter under discussion. If you wish to be forgiven for that, you are forgiven, but my own view is that intelligent, careful disagreement is an important contribution to the scholarly process.

Please allow me to clarify a few points that you've raised regarding my involvement in the controversy.

As I said in the first chapter of my book, the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not exist in solitary, splendid isolation; what it does in matters liturgical is the legitimate concern of all of us, Orthodox and Catholic, who share the Byzantine liturgical heritage - and it is correct to broaden this further and say that this is the heritage of the entire Church. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, but I can't quite grasp what is insulting about it. The Pittsburgh Metropolia shares in a proud heritage; this is nothing to be ashamed of. If that means, as I maintain, that Pittsburgh does have an obligation to take into account those who are not part of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, that also is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. If, as in this instance, someone is suggesting the Pittsburgh is not entirely living up to that heritage, well if the suggestion is true, the situation should be corrected; if the suggestion is false, it's not worth worrying about it.

Did I simply wake up one morning and, having nothing better to do, decide to write a criticism of a liturgical draft from Pittsburgh? Of course not. Before I could even consider such a matter, I would have had to be in possession of that draft - it was sent to me by some clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia with an urgent request for help. My first response was to suggest that these priests and deacons should write a criticism of the draft. This produced a redoubled importuning from friends whom I value and respect, urging me to act, because certain methods were being used to stifle any dissent from the proposal. When I replied that surely this assertion was exaggerated, specific examples were offered, and I was reminded of what I know to have happened in the recent past.

Finally I was persuaded that the clergy who were in touch with me were dismayed for objective reasons, and that an honest effort at scholarship might help. Several benefactors, all of whom are in fact members of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh, paid for the printing of the book and the posting of it as a gift to the bishops and priests (nobody paid me, incidentally, nor did I suggest that anyone should pay me).

Liturgy, as I point out in the book, is an emotional topic and often raises hackles, so it's best to lay a foundation based on facts and reliable sources, which is what I tried to do. Whether I succeeded in that effort is not for me to judge.

As to the argument that the Church is not a democracy and therefore we must all swallow anything that comes from Authority - to say the least, that is oversimplified. We certainly have the right to voice our concerns, and where something may be going on that is seriously alarming, we are not forbidden to take prudent action.

That same simplistic argument was used to justify the imposition of the Missal of Pope Paul VI despite opposition. Most of us are probably aware that the attempt to eradicate the older form of the Roman Mass has not succeeded. I venture to predict that an attempt to eradicate the "normal" form of the Divine Liturg will not succeed either.

As to why Father Taft favors "gender-inclusive" language (and indeed he does), the best way to find out is to read what he has written and what he said at the 1988 Stamford Symposium and then ask Father Taft if one wants further elucidation of his thought. Obviously, he and I disagree on that particular point. Despite this disagreement, we remain good friends - which says much about the kindness of Father Taft, for whose scholarship I have not only the highest respect, but also the deepest gratitude. Right now, he is in need of our prayers that his recovery from recent surgery should continue and he should be restored to complete health.

Satire, incidentally, is not necessarily uncharitable, although it can be uncharitable and is a bit risky when used over the Internet, which does not allow for tones of voice, facial expressions, and so on. We should all of us try to avoid hurting people personally, and the consideration that I may very well not know that someone else feels particularly vulnerable in this or that area of discussion should cause me to be more cautious than I sometimes am.

Nonetheless, satire and scholarship are not incompatible, as anyone who has read Father Taft's work with attention may have noticed!

Still, I have seldom felt personally offended during the course of this whole discussion (which I shall date, somewhat arbitrarily, as beginning with the publication of my book - not humble of me, but that surely marks the beginning of my own involvement).

May the Great Pumpkin find every pumpkin patch sincere, and leave us all pie-eyed!

Father Serge

If Theist Gal feels that I spoke down to her, then I offer her my apologies, as that was not my intent. I was basing my comments on her comment "Do any of these things actually change church doctrine?" Allow me to post some excerpts from Father Paul Kramer, a Roman Catholic, at the Fatima Peace Conference 2001.

The error, all too often, is to think of apostolic tradition in terms of dogma and to regard faith and morals and everything else as simply disciplinary matters that may be changed, according to the will of the legislator, whether he be bishop, or whether he be Pope.
When St. Paul speaks of tradition he is not speaking merely of dogma. In 2 Thessalonians St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that you have received from us, whether by word or by letter.” There we have both the oral tradition and the written tradition. But he is not only referring to teaching. He himself makes this clear with one of the most famous expressions coming out of the New Testament. St. Paul says, “I have handed over that which I received.” He then explains what it is that he has received. What he describes is the Holy Mass. That the Lord, before He suffered, took bread saying, “This is My Body which is given up for you. This is the chalice of My Blood,” etc. So when St. Paul says “hold fast to the traditions” and “I have handed over that which I have received,” he refers specifically to the liturgy. There is so little understanding concerning the doctrine about liturgy in the Church that it has become almost entirely obscured. In the Summa of St. Thomas you find next to nothing about liturgy. The reason for this is quite obvious if you know the history of doctrinal development. When a point becomes controversial, that is when the theologians do a great deal of writing and speaking on that topic. But if a doctrine is not questioned, not much is said about it.
The Christological controversies of the early ages and the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation — in what manner is there the Real Presence of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine — provoked a great deal of writing.
The one thing that was the least questioned was the doctrine of liturgy, because it was so well and universally understood. The liturgy was a sacred patrimony handed down from generation to generation in the Church.
The process of handing down is what we call tradition. Tradition, having been established, becomes custom. The liturgy grows gradually, as does a human being, in a natural organic way until it reaches its adulthood.
Canon 27 of the New Code of Canon Law explains that custom is the best interpreter of the laws. So when we look at liturgical law in the spirit of canonical tradition, that is to say, authentically understand the law as it was meant to be understood, then it must be understood according to that tradition that has established the ecclesiastical and liturgical customs. This is how important custom is in determining the sense, the meaning, of law.
Among the ancient Fathers we have St. John Chrysostom, who says it in one line: “Is it tradition? Ask no more.”
Among the medieval Doctors we find not too many pronouncements, but what we find is unanimously taught by such as St. Peter Damien and others who insist that you must not change the landmarks. What has been handed down is not to be altered. So much so that even if the Pope should make a change in the universal customs of the Church, he should not be followed. A book dealing specifically with custom, a theological treatise written by Pope Innocent III, says if the Pope makes changes in the universal customs of the Church, he is not to be followed.

So when one defends the Faith and stands up for Tradition, as Cathy and others have done, then they are accused of being uncharitable? I say the very Angels in Heaven rejoice over such "uncharitableness". In St Paul's words “I have handed over that which I received”, let me ask the revisionists if THEY wil be handing over to their children " that which they have recieved".

Alexandr

Father Deacon Lance,

You seem to have ignored the examples I have listed (all of which occurred in the past week). (Why did you not complain about uncharitable posts by those who support the Revisions?) A better response is simply for you to say that uncharitableness on one side never justifies it on the other.

What is this dislike for Father Serge? My guess is that he knew nothing of the revision of the Liturgy until he received a request from our clergy to review it. (I am sure he will tell us!)

Is it really charitable to repeatedly attack someone who has responded to an invitation from our own clergy and spent hundreds of hours in scholarly research and writing to prepare such a great gift as he has given to us? It seems to me that the real uncharity is not to consider the work of a recognized liturgical scholar and give it a real hearing.

Then there is this idea that those outside our Ruthenian Church do not have a voice. There are numerous commentaries of the Vatican II reforms of the Mass in the Latin Church written by Orthodox scholars. Do you actually believe that their scholarship was a decision to involve themselves in decisions about the Liturgy of the Latin Church? I hope not! I hope that our brethren in other Churches (Byzantine and Latin, Orthodox and Catholic) would care about us enough to praise what we are doing (if they think it correct) or to tell us if they believe us to be on the wrong path (if they believe it incorrect).

John

"Truth is truth. One cannot have an opinion on truth"
UNKNOWN

Alexandr

Just an aside, since I don't know if I will post in this thread otherwise:

Father David (twice, I believe) referred to a sense among the hierarchs and priests that they needed to be able to have a text of the Liturgy that COULD be celebrated in "about an hour" if optional texts were not taken - although he repeatedly deplored that kind of minimalism attitude.

Yet almost all the posts from those who object to the changes say "UNDER an hour" - I have seen this many times.

Can anyone produce a quote from Father David or anyone else on the Liturgical Commission that ever mentions celebrating the Divine Liturgy in under an hour? Or is this basically an exaggeration for rhetorical effect?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

John,

"Why did you not complain about uncharitable posts by those who support the Revisions?"

I have been busy with a new baby, Cub Scouts, ECF, and youth group among other things so my particiaption here of late has been less than it has been. Today's thread is my most involvement in a month. But you are correct all involved have been uncharitable and I agian ask forgiveness for my own.

However I must ask how does saying Fr. Serge chose to involve himself imply dislike of him? In fact, for person I have never met I like him just fine and if he is ever in Pittsburgh will break bread with him and buy him a Guinness. I have no problem with Fr. Serge offering his scholarly opinion and having his ideas heard. My post refers to the fact that Fr. Serge got involved and he is now going to take both praise and heat (like Steve's) for this involvement. It is to be expected that is all.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Jeff is correct. Father David did speak to this in his posts here. I do not remember his exact words but I do remember that he was speaking of ‘about an hour’ and not ‘way under an hour’.

For me the whole issue is rather silly. I know parishes that take every word and follow every rubric in the 1964 Chrystostom Liturgicon and manage to celebrate it in 70 minutes. They do it without being rushed, offer a 5 minute homily and distribute the Eucharist to over 100 people. They are the parishes that are actually growing. A legitimate short term step to a fuller Liturgy could easily be everything in the Levkulic Pew Book. That can certainly be done in an hour (even by the slowest priests and cantors).

Well, it would have been nice to get an apology, since the comments did make me upset enough to cry.

But since the administrator says that I am the one who was uncharitable, I will bow to his unquestioned authority and apologize myself to anyone who was similarly hurt by any of my comments.

For the sake of it, I'll search for references or quotes to it.

But quote or no quote, when one only has one verse antiphons, cuts out the little litanies, cuts out the 'podaj Hospodi' petitions, cuts out the Catuchuems litanies, etc. what do you think is happening?

We live in a society that lives in one hour and half hour increments and the church is being expected to conform to this when we all know it should be the other way around.

I'm not being confrontational, but I don't know any other way to say it. I don't need a quote from Fr. David and others on the commission to see what is happening. It is clear as to one of the reasons for chopping up the liturgy.

mc

Fr. Serge,

I am happy to hear you are not offended or angry at me as neither was my intention. I have no objection to your involvement and I quite agree the Metropolia does not exist in isolation. I do not agree with all the suggested changes. I also disagree with is the way some here are acting and the actions they are taking.

Happy Halloween and may the Great Pumpkin fill your pumpkin with ale.

Fr. Deacon Lance

When you repeatedly speak something that is not correct it carries with it the connotation of dislike. I’m glad to hear that you like him just fine. If you ever get together with him let me know. You can bring the bread and I will provide the Guinness (for you and me) and the Scotch (for Father Serge).

I’m really glad to hear this! This did not come across in your posts.

I agree that Father Serge should take both praise and criticism for his work. I have known him to be open to criticism, and even to change an opinion or two when good scholarship suggests it. To date, though, you have not offered much of either. Your repeated comments about him have been pretty limited to his “choos[ing] to insert himself” and suggest that you are more eager to silence a scholar rather than listen to what he has to say.

I hope that you will also agree that those who are proposing a revision of our liturgical inheritance should also take “both praise and heat”.

John

I believe that Father Serge’s parish is following the Julian calendar.

Maybe we should all hold our Halloween Greetings for 13 days?

"I believe that Father Serge’s parish is following the Julian calendar.

Maybe we should all hold our Halloween Greetings for 13 days?"

Is outrage! Everyone knows the Great Pumpkin only rises out of the pumpkin patch on Gregorian Halloween! :p

Sorry to interject off topic, but, a 5 minute homily?!?!

Lance,

I must disagree, not because of anything you said... but because I am byzantine and should do so on principle of the matter.

i believe they are using the Old Druidic Calendar before the Reform of Tara, but after the reform of Cedric the turnip hater.

Actually they couldn't really be using the Druidic Calendar because the Pumpkin is from the New World, and the Druids wouldn't know what a pumpkin is anyway.

John

Actually the Great Pumpkin is a modernist New World custom, and is only applicable to the New Squash, Decorative Gourds, and Other Pumpkin-like and Similar Viney Crops Calendar. But as for me - I got a....r-rock.

Father Deacon,

Do you consider 5 minutes to be too long? :p

A priest friend of mine who is also one of the best preachers I have ever heard says that when he took homiletics he was taught that "if you can't say what you want to say in 5 minutes then you're not going to say it in 10 or 20 minutes."

I'd gladly give up even a good 2 minute homily to get back all the prayers that belong to the Liturgy!

John

Um... Father Deacon... you were a day early. Try again tonight.

and....

Was like this in century of the fourth Tsargrad, when Vladyka Ivan Chysostomos rebuke even Tsarina? Was NOT! Is OUTRAGE!!



Jeff

In my homiletics course the instructor had a 15-minute egg timer. When the single "ding" went off regardless of where the student was in the homily he brusquely said "Next!" or "Sit down. Too long."

Using Bishop Ireland or any of my other examples of the past, is only a slight fraction on how I arrived at my decision. To wrap it up I'll say what a former BCC priest told me a long time ago. I'm tired of the "schizophrenia" of the BCC.

I'm not bitter, hold no contempt towards anyone,and will not trash my former faith...But I don't see myself looking back either.

yes, I've heard a number of people quote that line about 5 minutes. In my experience, those who quote it are the same people who long for the 40 minute "Byzantine Mass."

Using that reasoning, Saint John Chrysostom never said anything at all... Does anyone think the Sermon on the Mount was delivered in less than 5 minutes?

Protest the abbreviated homily as well.

I think all of us have had the experiences where a 5 minute homily was about 4 mnutes too long and a 20 minute homily was way too short. :rolleyes:

I have no issue with longer homilies, provided they are well preached. My estimate (given without benefit of a stopwatch) is that the length of the homily in most parishes is about 7-10 minutes (priest or deacon, Byzantine and Latin parishes).

I certainly agree with Father Deacon John that Jesus took more than 5 minutes to deliver the Sermon on the Mount. But then he didn’t have hierarchs telling him to get the entire event (liturgy AND the sermon) done in about an hour.

I’ll make a deal with Father Deacon John. If he will start protesting the proposed abbreviated Liturgy I will start protesting the 5 minute homily.

Etnick,

You're not going to hear any argument from me on that point, although I think one will find profound differences between Parma and Passaic. (Perhaps that is your point! )

There are, of course, other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions.

I am glad that you say you are not leaving with any bitterness, but the rationale you stated previously indicated only the past failures of the Latin Church and the BCC and the impossibility of living a fully Eastern ecclesial life in communion with Rome.

It would be wrong of me if I did not encourage you to reconsider staying in communion with Rome, but I doubt it would have any effect. Certainly know that you are always welcome to return. We need more Orthodox minded members to "carry the orientale lumen" within the communion of Catholic churches.

Peace and all good,

Gordo

Do you realize how tiring this is? BTW, who is listening? Face it, the Bishops have no plan on how to bring us closer to the East. At the Cathedral in Parma, they still kneel on Sundays. They are to be the example!!! Again, where's the plan and who's in on it?

Yes, I hear the Melkites are the most Eastern maybe we should join that jurisdiction!

Slavipodvizhnik wrote:
"So when one defends the Faith and stands up for Tradition, as Cathy and others have done, then they are accused of being uncharitable? I say the very Angels in Heaven rejoice over such "uncharitableness". In St Paul's words “I have handed over that which I received”, let me ask the revisionists if THEY wil be handing over to their children " that which they have recieved"."

Amen! Amen! Amen!

And people wonder why there are those who are converting to Orthodoxy? (Note to those who just got hysterical, I am not advocating for mass conversions to Orthodoxy). But why is it that what Alexandr, who happens to be a Traditional Orthodox, has written would be agreed by his hierarchs, yet I have not seen one of our hierarchs with the same view. If someone has, please let me know. When I don't see Vespers or Matins, full Liturgies, fasting periods followed and/or even mentioned, and a whole other list of items at 95% of our churches then I have to reach that conclusion. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

But I'll let you all in on a little secret. The above points are why people are leaving us and joining them. (and I hate to write in 'us' 'them' terms but that's the best I could come up with) And actually, the real way to word it is that they don't think that they are really leaving the Byzantine Church, but they think that the Byzantine Church has left them. This new revision is the final straw for many. Many are going to a place (Orthodoxy in this case) which is truer to Tradition.

And to those who say, try out the new Liturgy, wait and see what it's like. We've all seen chopped up liturgies. Now we appear to have chopped up liturgies with feminizations as well coming our way. :rolleyes:

While it's sad to see people go, what can we tell them? Wait around, you're actually going to like the chopped up feminized revised liturgy? They'll run even faster.

I encourage everyone to read or reread Slavipodvizhnik's post and ask yourself why are we meddling with Tradition? Why are we not handing down Tradition? Does this revised liturgy bring us closer or farther from being Orthodox in Union with Rome? Does the revised Liturgy follow Pope JPII and Pope Benedicts calls to return to our Orthodox roots?

Will our hierarchs step up and defend Tradition and restore Tradition to the majority of our churches is what remains to be seen.

If not, then the exodus will grow and the sinking ship will continue its plunge. That's not a threat, that's reality. As I've wrote here many times, what a shame that the energy, time, and money that has been put into the revised liturgy was not invested in evangelization.

mc

Here's my counter offer: I prefer a positive perspective, so I am much more willing to support the fullness of our liturgical tradition.

I'll agree to that as well.

Jeff Mierzejewski

Scotch indeed! Is outrage! We are drinking pure, holy, Irish single malt!

My, this thread is suddenly very busy today.

Guiness outside of the Homeland is not all that well recommended - the bottled stuff is not adequate, and the kegs don't survive the trip too well. Have you tried Dark Trappist? (A certain brand of beer is popular around St Louis, but I wouldn't dare post the brand name!).

As for those desiring to flee from the prospect of the one-hour Liturgy and five-minute sermon: stay away from the Antiochian Archdiocese. Metropolitan Antony (Bashir) of thrice-blessed memory seriously told his priests, frequently, that "the Mass should begin at 11 and end at 12, with a 5-minute sermon". The moral is to look before you leap.

Marshall McLuhan pointed out more than 40 years ago that the one-eyed monster has seriously cut down the attention span of most Americans. So if we wish to serve traditionally, it behooves us to let people know in advance that the Divine Liturgy is not planned for the length of a television show, or a music CD.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi (or, if you prefer the vernacular: on the first day of the week Gloria was ill on the subway).

Fr. Serge

Agreed! I dislike protesting anything – even 5 minute homilies. I was not overly happy to join your protest against short homilies. It’s always better to speak positively and propose the restoration of our official liturgical tradition based upon good scholarship and the fact that it works everywhere it is tried.

Such nice, politically correct terminology. Webster's defines fullness as "the highest or fullest state, condition, or degree". Is this what you see with the proposed changes? if you do, let me reccomend a good opthamologist. Chopped up, abbreviated, condensed, shortened, sawed off, mangled beyond recognition, these choices would be perhaps more accurate in their description.
I truly despise politically correct terminology. Basically what it means is
"I'm too embarrassed to say what I really mean". Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Or better yet, come to Church with me this Sunday. I'll show you the "fullness of our liturgical tradition". Maybe you'll come away with an appreciation of how hollow your words ring compared to present and proposed realities.

Alexandr

Fr Serge:

I knew John had to be wrong when he posted you enjoyed Scotch. (To tell the truth, I have no idea why he would bring you clear tape, when he and Fr Deacon Lance would be enjoying Guiness.) I know no self-respecting Irish would drink anything but Irish single malt.

While an undergrad at USC, we'd celebrate football victories over the Fighting Irish with Bushmills.

Well said, Alexandr.

Alexandr:

I am well aware of the definition for "fullness," which is why I chose that word as opposed to any other.

Are you willing to foot the airfare for 8 to travel from PHX to PIT? If you are, we might be persuaded to join you this weekend. Thanks for the invitation.

BTW, is there a deacon that serves at your parish?

Alexandr:

I am well aware of the definition for "fullness," which is why I chose that word as opposed to any other.

Are you willing to foot the airfare for 8 to travel from PHX to PIT? If you are, we might be persuaded to join you this weekend. Thanks for the invitation.

BTW, is there a deacon that serves at your parish? [/QUOTE]

Dear Fr Deacocon John,
Sitting on my desk in front of me is a copy of the Sluzhebnik: Ruthenian Recension, Rome 1952. This, I think that we can agree, should be the "fullness of our liturgical traditions" made manifest. I don't know how well you read Slavonic, but what I read here, and what I have seen proposed resemble each other about as much as Hilary Clinton and Mother Teresa! The offer for the opthamologist referral still stands.

As far as deacons, we do have 2: Otec Nikolai, who rarely serves anymore as he is in his 90's, and Otec Serafim, who cannot attend as often as he would like, traveling 200 miles each way.

If you want to see a local example, here is a website with directions: http://members.cox.net/holy_archangels/index.html
I'll let Priest John know you are coming. He is a convert, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the fullness of tradition with you.

Alexandr

Alexandr:

I thought the offer was to accompany you to your parish or will you be in Phoenix this weekend?

BTW, I know a parishioner from the Holy Archangels parish in Phoenix. Quite pleasant fellow, not the least sarcastic...

I can certainly understand how difficult it may be for the deacons that serve your parish to serve the liturgical services given their respective age and commutes. You certainly have to agree that when a deacon does not serve the Divine Liturgy that too lacks the fullness of the liturgical tradition. Given the realities, the priest cannot pray the inaudible prayers while he is intoning the litanies. So in this instance the priest's own prayer is "chopped up, abbreviated, condensed, shortened, sawed off, mangled beyond recognition..." because he has to perform the deacon's role, but you are not even aware of that.

No deficiencies are ideal, but this is what happens in many parishes. Restoring the fullness of our traditon is not just a matter of celebrating the fullness of our litugical traditon. It certainly is the source, but it does not end there in the Liturgy.

BTW, my eyesight is fine, don't need an opthamologist. If I needed my vision checked I'm sure anny one of my doctors from Mayo Clinic can refer me locally.


In re the Slavonic, I can't and don't read Slavonic, and I understand even less.

The "Fighting Irish of Notre Dame" have been mostly Polish for the last couple of generations. What can we do?

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr Serge:

appears that you haven't followed college football in the US for sometime. Brady Quinn, Paddy Mullen, and a host of Mc's can be found on the current Fighting Irish football roster. There are some Poles, but they seem to be in the minority.

Fr. Serge,

Blahoslovy!

When I was in Killorglin, County Kerry, I was shocked to see Irishmen drinking a certain beer that we enjoy in the St. Louis area. When I told the barmaid that I was taken aback seeing the Irish drinking said beer, she shot back "You're not tellin' the Irish how to be Irish are ya?"

BTW, she also told me "There's no Murphy's in County Kerry!" when I asked for it. The night before I had my first taste of Murphy's in Fermoy and I loved it!

Dear mc,

Regardless, the proposed People's Book DOES have the "Grant this, O Lord" petitions, the Litany of the Catechumens, and the second of the two Litanies of the Faithful.

By comparison, our last official service book for the Metropolia, in 1978, omitted the third antiphon and the Beatitudes, the Litany of the Catechumens and BOTH of the Litanies of the Faithful, and made the Litany "over the gifts" (text omitted)and the Litany of Thankgiving optional. I remember the point in the 1990's when our parish was ordered by the bishop to take the latter two at every Liturgy.

None of the official people' service books for the Metropolia have had the litany between the antiphons; in our Slavonic chant books, the responses were taken without inserting the priest's and deacons parts in the middle! This is still the practice in some Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parishes.

Not trying to say we can't do better, but several of the items you mentioned ARE in the proposed new book.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

I will gladly take a trip out to Phoenix if you are truly interested in learning liturgics. Just let me know.


Sarcastic? Moi? Really now Deacon John, I wouldn't say sarcastic, just tired of attempts by revisionists to destroy the faith of our fathers.

I can assure you that I am quite aware of that fact. However what is altered through neccesity cannot be compared to what is altered by choice. When there is no deacon present, the priest has no choice. Who is holding the gun to your head and making you omit 1/3 of the liturgy?
As far as to what I am aware of and what I am not, rest assured, if I learned anything during my 6 years in Jordanville, it was Liturgics. May I ask which seminary you attended?

My dear Deacon, without the Eucharist, there would be no need to preserve any other tradition. The Church would cease. And this is the very thing that you and others are proposing to alter even more!

This could be the source of some of the difficulties that you are having. I would not presume to critique the Latin mass if I did not understand Latin. How than can you defend altering the Divine Liturgy if you cannot even read it as it should be celebrated?
I realize that my words are blunt. Please understand, I do not mean to pick on you. You have done me no harm that I am aware of, and I wish no ill will towards you. I am just tired of the rhetoric being spewn out by those, who self admitedly, cannot even read the Liturgy as it is supposed to be celebrated. Rome gave you the Ordo Celebrationis in 1942. You might consider following it. Currently, the BCC is not even faithful to the dictates that Rome gave you to return to your liturgical roots. If you did, then some of the other services would re-enter the liturgical life of the Church.

Alexandr

I would suggest this advice is actually dated, having myself attended liturgies regularly at varioius Antiochian parishes over the course of the last few years. Every parish and mission I've been to maintains Saturday vespers, Sunday Orthros and then Liturgy. I would say an hour and a half, including sermon, would be the rough average of the liturgy itself (plus an hour for Orthros). They are also very zealous about maintaining the fasts in my experience.

I don't see eye to eye with them on all things, but I can't fault them in this regard. The OCA in my experience is also fairly similar, except third hour in place of Orthros.

Now back to my whiskey.

Nicholas wrote:

>>
I heard that a bishop has said he "had to" promulgate the Liturgy! Astounding! His excuse was that the committee had done all its work, and a bishop didn't have the right to veto it, in fact he was only going to sign the Revised Liturgy (which he didn't like) because he had to.
So what does that do to the idea that we... should rely on our bishops to guard the tradition?
<<

Nicholas is right... As the Romans have learned in the 40 years since their Vatican II council, the bishops cannot be trusted. Very sad. And now we're discovering the same thing in our own orb.

I took instruction to enter the BCC from a bi-titual priest who's ordination was Roman. In one of our first classes, he taught us St. John Chrysostom's observation, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops."

But then, I am only a dues-payer who lives in eastern Pennsylvania, so what do I know?

Alexandr,

I serve in a parish that uses the Blue Book, on occasion with Fr. Elias who serves liturgy according to the Red Book almost to the letter, even he doesn't take the angel of peace litany twice at least he hasn't when I have served with him, and at the Seminary where the new rubrics are followed. I enjoy serving at them all and am edified by the Liturgy at all of them.

I think we need to seperate what is essential to the liturgy and what is not. One may prefer the Liturgy served to the letter, but abbreviating one or another non-essential items does not affect the essence of the Liturgy. Abbreviations have existed for along time and even the saints allowed for them. The proposed Liturgy as to what Litanies are taken or omitted simply codifies what is standard practice in the Metropolia and ACROD. Does it differ from standard ROCOR or OCA practice, yes. Is it unrecognizable as the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, hardly.

Although to some take one Litany out and all of sudden something is unrecognizable. Case in point, one OCA bishop after going to Vespers at New Skete said the service was unrecognizable. Now granted New Skete usage is different from standard OCA, the structural difference in New Skete Vespers vs standard Vespers is New Skete has moved O Joyful Light to the beginning of the service and moved the Great Litany from the beginning to the end joining it with the Angel of Peace Litany. These changes make it different butcertainly not unrecognizable. The same could be said structurally of the Tridentine and Pauline Uses of the Roman Rite. But Liturgics are a touchy issue as implementation of the Nikonian and Pauline reforms demonstrate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Holy Synod of the Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church has just mandated the clergy to introduce the faithful to such important documents as the Ordo Celebrationis, the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II, the Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches, the Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen and the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Will the Council of Hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia direct the clergy of that Metropolia to do the same for the faithful of that Metropolia?

Father Serge

I disagree strongly. It’s not about individual preferences. The handing down of Liturgy is part of the handing down of worship, which is (in turn) part of the handing down of Holy Tradition. It is not the job of the tiny Ruthenian Church to take upon itself the revision of what belongs to the entire Byzantine Church. There is nothing in the Liturgy that is non-essential and anything that is removed does affect the essence of the Liturgy. The problem in our Church is that we have not prayed the fullness of the Liturgy in many generations and, therefore, are not able to comprehend the damage we do when we edit it to suit the personal preferences of a few in our Church.

There is a difference in allowing abbreviations and changing the standard. I don’t know of any saint that sought to prohibit any priest from celebrating according to the standard.

This statement is incorrect. Johnstown does not prohibit its clergy from celebrating according to the standard. Metropolitan Nicholas is on record as favoring bringing the celebration of the Liturgy in the parishes up to the official Ruthenian standard. Further, we are talking not only about skipping a few litanies (as unjust as that is to God). There are many more rubrical changes that Metropolitan Nicholas (nor any other Orthodox hierarch) is planning to mandate.

Finally, even if the proposed liturgical changes were a simple codification of the current use (which it most definitely is not) one need only glance at the Vatican’s Liturgical Instruction to see that we are to supposed to be codifying any local usage. We are supposed to be restoring the Liturgy to its fullness.

Whether the Liturgy is unrecognizable if celebrated according to the proposed reform is irrelevant. Liturgy is not about us. It is about worshipping God. There is absolutely no reason to change it.

New Skete usage has been overwhelmingly rejected by the OCA (as well as the rest of Orthodoxy).

A wonderful announcement!

In the short term, probably not (but we can hope, pray and encourage them).

In the long term, yes. Those proposing the reforms will eventually be replaced by a younger generation, one that will be more faithful to our official Liturgy.

Question: Did the Ruthenian Greek Catholics in Europe sent observers (or participants) to this meeting of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? I hope they did and will mandate these documents in their eparchies. Then I will hope that all Byzantine hierarchs everywhere will put pressure on our God-loving bishops and encourage them to do also mandate these documents. It is never too late to do what is right!

Whoa, whoa there Deacon Lance!! You presume to have the autority to decide what is essential in the Divine Liturgy and what is not???? Pray, when did the bishops of the BCC become an Ecumenical Council? All, I repeat, ALL of the Divine Liturgy is essential! Omitting portions of the rubrics is accomodated by Economia in times of dire need. But I see no Tatars setting fires to the doors of the BCC Churches in America. That is about the only reason for adjusting rubrics. Are you aware, that if the priest serving Liturgy should drop over dead in the middle of the service, according to Canon Law, another priest will come and finish the entire service, over top of the priests body if needed? What justification do you propose for altering the liturgy? To satisfy the personal opinion of a few parishoners?

As regards to the example you gave of New Skete, well, not to speak disparagingly of another jurisdiction, but there is question as to the very Orthodoxy of New Skete, and this opinion is held not only by my jurisdiction, but amongst the vast majority of world Orthodoxy, OCA included. Just because someone else does something does not make it correct. And I can assure that what New Skete is doing is neither Orthodox, nor even remotely correct.

We all view things through the eyes of our experiences. You as an American, are shaded by your experiences. Which is fine, but The Divine Liturgy transcends all regional and national divisions. I can walk into the Divine Liturgy being celebrated in Belgrade, Presov, Moscow, Athens, Jerusalem, Nairobi, Peking and New York, and other than language, it will be identical.

Alexandr

Father Serge,

How do they intend to do the introduction? Are their any supporting materials which will be created to assist the priests, apart from the documents themselves?

This is wonderful news. Personally I think every Greek-Catholic jurisdiction should consider this.

In Christ,

Gordon

Yes, Kyr Milan of Uzhorod was there - I saw him in the synodal photo. Also the new draft catechism has been submitted for Kyr Petro (Stasiuk)'s review.

The beatification process for Metropolitan Andrey (whose is largely responsible for staying the course to get the Ordo promulgated) has moved to the next stage.

And yes, recommendations for additional efforts to instruct the faithful in "liturgical terms and the official liturgical texts of our Church" were made. All in all, sounds like a very fruitful Sobor.
FDD

"There is nothing in the Liturgy that is non-essential and anything that is removed does affect the essence of the Liturgy."

Well you disagree with myself and every hierarch and saint through the ages who has added, deleted, rearranged, or edited the Liturgy.

"There is a difference in allowing abbreviations and changing the standard. I don’t know of any saint that sought to prohibit any priest from celebrating according to the standard."

As Fr. David pointed out the standard remains the Greek and Old Slavonic Liturgikons printed in Rome. The proposed Liturgy is an adaption of these. I also have no proof that any priest will prohibited from celebrating according to Red Book. And if history is any indication each priest will indeed be free to serve as he see fit regardless whta is promulgated.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Alexandr,

"Whoa, whoa there Deacon Lance!! You presume to have the autority to decide what is essential in the Divine Liturgy and what is not???? ...All, I repeat, ALL of the Divine Liturgy is essential!"

The Church has the authority and has used it time and time again. Those things essential to the Liturgy are those that can be found in all Liturgies at all times, which would be limited to an Epistle reading, a Gospel reading, and the Anaphora. Those things that are non-essential are those that have come, gone, and come back again.

Fr. Deacon Lance