I was reading the dicussion about the New Liturgy, and I saw what was being written about Fr. Keleher's book, so I went to speak with our pastor. I asked him to order me a copy of the book, my pastor gave it to me last week.

I don't know the languages, so some of what Fr. Keleher wrote went over my head, but I read every page anyway. It made me realize I need to study more about this. So I went to my pastor with some questions!

My pastor doesn't like the New Liturgy, and it was very interesting talking to him about it. My pastor knows Fr. David Petras well, and knows most of the priests on the committee.

There were a few things I didn't understand, but my pastor filled in some parts of the story, that seem to make sense.

He said Fr. Petras is absolutely right about one thing, the draft printed in Fr. Keleher's book is not all his work, and Fr. Petras is trying to defend things here, that he didn't agree with. My priest said heard this from one of the committee. The committee did produce a better and more complete translation, that they sent to the bishops. But the bishops took a red pen to their work, and told the committee to leave out some things, and put back some things, and change some things back the way they were. Fr. Petras is right, and he is not the only 'mover' who wrote that draft. In many places, it is nothing at all like what the committee wanted, but he has to defend it anyway. My priest admired that, and thought Fr. Petras deserved an A+ for defending even the parts he doesn't agree with.

I thought the most interesting part of Fr. Keleher's book, was the part about the history of our liturgy book. I knew about the fights about married priests and all, but I didn't know they had fought so much about the Liturgy book. I asked my priest if all that was true, and he said it was! Only, he said, Fr. Keleher only told part of the story, and that he didn't bring the history up to date. He didn't tell half of the story. He said he guessed that you're not supposed to talk about people while they're alive?

My pastor said the argument is not really about words or translations, it's about our Church. When he told me that, I think I began to understand why people, on both sides, were so angry about it.

Years ago, the Ukrainian bishops and the Byzantine bishops thought about working together to produce English books that we could both share. Sounds like a good idea, but there was opposition in our Church, by those who hated Ukrainians, and didn't want to have anything to do with them, work with them, or have anything in common with them. But when our books came out, some Ukrainians began using them in some places.

But the real interesting story is that when our books came out, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church began using our English books, they liked them, and the brown pew book was in use in many many parishes. They had always used our Slavic books, after all.

Bishop Nicholas, of the Carpatho-Russians, even asked our Archbishop (not Archbishop Basil, a few Archbishops ago) if we could make it official, and work together on all our books. The archbishop and one of the bishops was in favor, but one bishop was absolutely opposed. Apparantly, he hated the Orthodox more than he hated the Ukrianians, and absolutely wanted to kill that idea forever. He wanted to make sure that we had as little in common with them as possible, so that none of "them" would be able to pray or sing in our Catholic Churches, and none of "our people" would be able to pray or sing in their Orthodox Churches. My priest said this bishop had a lot of bad experiences with the Orthodox when he was growing up.

My priest said there is still a bishop who hates things that look "Orthodox" and so he really wants a non-Orthdox looking Liturgy. The idea that we 'share' a common tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox makes him see red.

He wants to take the Church in a separate direction that means that we will never ever be able to work with the Ukrainians, he says they're a different Rite. But if we have the same books, he can't really say that.

There was some talk that all Greek Catholics (Byzantine, Ukrainian, Melkite) might someday form a single national American Greek Catholic Church, after the old generation who spoke the old languages passed on. But one bishop hated the very idea of working together with them, and just laughs at the idea of cooperating.

But the most important thing he wants is to make our books so 'non-Orthodox' that no Orthodox Church would even ever want to use them. And if our people get used to a more Catholic Liturgy they'd be lost if they visit an Orthodox Church, and they won't be able to pray or feel comfortable there.

My priest said that there is still a bishop in our Church who hates the idea that we share a tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox, and he is using this New Liturgy to make sure that isn't true, and to make sure it never happens. The New Liturgy is going to be marketed as inclusive and up to date, but the real but unspoken agenda, is to make sure that Ukrianians and Orthodox are not welcome in our Churches and vice versa.

If this is true, it might explain why people are arguing so much about Greek words. It's not really about the words at all, it's about our future, and the future of Byzantine Catholics in America.

Isn't it time we grew up, and got over all those old fights? If that is really what this is all about, I think it is pretty sad.

Helen

The name of the place in Pittsburgh is Russka Dolina and the name of the Bishop is Andrew, and he chairs the liturgical committee in the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and he squashes orthodox and strongly ethnic parishes and people. Dear God, when are we going to stop hiding and running from it?

It is time he and the Church get over it.

Lord have mercy!

Eli

Helen I dont think you should be quoting your priest so closely with "he saids". He may get into trouble having spoken to you in private conversation. You have now told the whole planet

Politics in the Church are not signs of imaturity (although individuals may be) but reflects the reality of life. Different traditions are just that and people are attached to them and are studying them. I cant see any of them being so keen to loose theirs for some standardisation. Co-operation should be happening among Catholics I agree.

It will be fine Pavel. The bishop in question would be hard pressed to harm Helen's parish priest.

It's time we stop hiding the thorns in our collective side.

Bishop Pataki as a younger man and priest was booed in a public courtroom. It has haunted him for decades and who knows the collatoral damage done over the years by the hurt and bitterness that resulted.

Bishop Andrew is nearly 80 years old. He needs our love and our prayers and we need to be able to breathe easily as a Church which is Orthodox in communion with Rome.

It will be all right. Really it will.

Eli

It's been known for some time that the Bishop behind the "NEW" Liturgy is Bishop Andrew. His Grace chairs both commissions on the Archeparcial level, and yes his dislike for the Orthodox and Ukrainian is well known. Ultimately, what can you do if an Archbishop and two other Bishops won't stand up and do the right thing?

We have talked about this but not all in one place. Canonically the other two bishops AND the archbishop's hands are tied in terms of doing anything official, and so rather than tear the Church apart, there are certain accommodations struck. That is the only other way short of serious confrontation.

It seems reasonable to suggest that somebody in Rome is supportive of Bishop Andrew and so his influence remains dominant in the Metropolia.

There are many things that will forever be hidden but there are some things that yield to educated guess and best understanding given what is possible and reasonable to know even second hand.

On the other hand we could have a Metropolitan who was willing to behave like an Archbishop Major and simply tell Rome and any recalcitrant bishop to go ahead and go their own way and lead the rest down a path of growth, light and life.

That is possible to do in practice. I doubt Rome would step in and try to squash that kind of behavior as long as it was not a direct and serious challenge and did not erupt into outright war.

Archbishop Basil, and perhaps for good reason, has not chosen that direct a path as yet.

But there is no easy answer here to any of this except to shine as much light into the darkness as possible as often as possible and to pray.

Eli

If this is true, ( and I said if ) how sad it is that one man's negative animus towards a race would get us in the situation of a feminist and chopped up liturgy that we face now. Actually, how sad that anyone would have hatred towards a race.

Quote:

He wants to take the Church in a separate direction that means that we will never ever be able to work with the Ukrainians, he says they're a different Rite. But if we have the same books, he can't really say that.

They are a different rite. But they are our Greek Catholic brethern period, and there never should have been a separation in the first place. Once again, beyond sad and shame if this is true.

Quote:

And if our people get used to a more Catholic Liturgy they'd be lost if they visit an Orthodox Church, and they won't be able to pray or feel comfortable there.

mission accomplished. The way the majority of the BCA practices this is well on it way to fruition.

Quote:

My priest said that there is still a bishop in our Church who hates the idea that we share a tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox, and he is using this New Liturgy to make sure that isn't true, and to make sure it never happens. The New Liturgy is going to be marketed as inclusive and up to date, but the real but unspoken agenda, is to make sure that Ukrianians and Orthodox are not welcome in our Churches and vice versa.

If true, shame, shame shame.

Quote:

Isn't it time we grew up, and got over all those old fights? If that is really what this is all about, I think it is pretty sad.

yes, how sad indeed.

Of course H.B. Metroplotian Basil is NOT a Major Archbishop.

If all is true, I'd leave the BCC today and request membership in the UGCC.

Shh....don't tell DJS!

Dear Helen,

First, please accept my thanks! I am naturally pleased that you have read my book with such careful attention. I am even more pleased that you were not put off by the Greek and Church-Slavonic words (which I had to supply in criticizing the translation).

Further, it is encouraging that your Pastor (whose name I don’t know, so I can’t tell if by chance I know this good Priest personally, although from your description and experience he would appear to be someone well worth knowing) did not attempt to stop you from reading the book, and was willing to respond with honesty to your questions after you had read it. Clearly this Priest knows the value of aware, educated and commited lay people in his parish.

As I have written here on the Forum (cf. my last posting on the “Books” section), it is entirely possible that Father David Petras is correct in his repeated insistence that he is not personally responsible for the whole of the draft which I have criticized. The issue, in any case, is not the person of Father David, but the recasting and the translation of the Divine Liturgy. That said, it is intriguing that Father David would feel obligated to defend that which he does not agree with – as an intellectual exercise this seems a strange thing to do. It also seems risky; surely it would be better for someone who supports whatever the specific point might be to defend that point.

In saying that I only told part of the history – and that I did not bring it fully up to date – your Pastor has told you the truth. Part of the reason has to do with the purpose of the book; my goal was to present that part of the history which had direct bearing on the liturgical crisis, to put the crisis in its historical context (as the title of chapter 2 indicates). Incidentally, I should have added a paragraph or two about the disagreement concerning the service of matrimony – this took place in the late nineteen-sixties or the very early nineteen-seventies.

It is certainly imprudent to attack people while they are still alive (and therefore presumably able to reciprocate!). But I was not out to attack anyone personally. It is not the direct fault of Bishop Basil Takach that he became serious ill during World War II and could no longer function effectively. Bishop Daniel Ivancho was well thought of despite the Achilles heel of his marital situation and in general I wrote favourably about him. Bishop Nicholas Elko was a man of very strong convictions where liturgical matters were concerned; I could wish that his readiness to stand up to his opponents had been given to a better cause. Meanwhile he certainly had some good points, one of which is that he worked tirelessly to raise the level of general Catholic awareness of the presence of Byzantine Catholics in America. The manner of his removal was shabby, to say the least. It should be obvious from the book that his liturgical agenda was and is abhorrent to me, even though I have some idea of what was behind it.

The book is carefully written to preclude a possible criticism that I was out to attack individuals (Bishops, clergy, religious or laity) who might be considered responsible for the 2004 draft. The reason, as you can understand, is that the book is written to discuss issues, not personalities. Bishop X, Father Y or even Father Serge will in due course be judged by Almighty God; meanwhile writing a book to judge any or all of them on a personal basis would not be a proper thing to do (although a good friend of mine has more than once suggested that someday someone will write a learned book “proving” that I never existed!). Like others in the field, I do my poor best to contribute to our knowledge of the Liturgy and of issues related to the Liturgy.

Your Pastor is indisputably right: the argument isn’t about words or translations so much as it is about two (or more) conflicting visions of the Church – Father Taft has made the same point. It cannot be otherwise, since the Liturgy is by far the most important thing we have and the most important thing we do. Abusing the Liturgy so as to contradict the Catholic understanding of our Church is reprehensible in the extreme – but there are still those who maintain a quite different vision of the Church, so it is necessary to be “patiently adamant”. That expression looks like a contradiction in terms, but it isn’t! As for abusing the Liturgy in pursuit of an ethnic agenda – that only has to be stated to be perceived as downright sinful.

It wasn’t just a matter of refusing to cooperate with the Ukrainians in producing a common English translation. The Orthodox community which is now the Orthodox Church in America also approached the Ruthenian Church with a serious proposal to produce a common English translation of the Divine Liturgy and other liturgical books. This too was rejected out of hand.

Speaking sociologically one could reasonably say that this is the inevitable result of a purely negative self-identification of an ethno-religious community (this Church is not Ukrainian, this Church is not Orthodox, this Church is Catholic but not in the sense of doing what the Catholic Church asks it to do . . . etc.).

I could offer a long string of quotations from Popes, Vatican II, and so on calling for the opposite approach – but some of the quotes are already in the book. If you want more, here I am, at your service.

There were plenty of bad experiences between Orthodox and Greek-Catholics in the USA in the first half of the twentieth century; anyone who wants to tell horror stories along that line does not lack for material. For that matter, there were plenty of bad experiences between Irish Roman Catholic hierarchs in the USA and Greek-Catholics from the moment that the first Greek-Catholic Priest arrived in Shenandoah. In both cases, of course, the horror stories have grown in the telling, but there is still truth to it (Archbishop John Ireland of Minneapolis-Saint Paul, whose misconduct brought on the first major departure of Greek-Catholics for Russian Orthodox in America, treated the Irish themselves no better, believe it or not – again it was a question of his vision of the Church in the USA; in that vision there was no room either for Eastern Catholics or for Irish Catholics who were “peasants” and whose native language was Irish – so he dumped an entire trainload of people from Connemara on empty fields in mid-winter in northern Minnesota and left them there, presumably to die of cold and hunger at their own convenience).

Hatred of another Church, another ethnic group, or even hatred of one’s own ethnic group (it happens – one of the leading members of Hitler’s regime was Jewish) is no acceptable basis for any form of Christianity – and if the grievances are real, as is sometimes the case, we are under orders from Our Lord to forgive our enemies. That is yet another reason to discuss issues, not personalities.

Yes, it is high time to get over all this. Aside from the obvious religious mandate to cut out the hatreds, we can’t afford them in the face of dwindling attendance, dwindling vocations and dwindling financial support. Serious cooperation right now, and serious striving for a united Greek-Catholic Church in the USA are needed, not fighting the battles of a lifetime ago.

Again, my thanks to you and my fraternal appreciation to your Pastor. May God bless you and your parish.

Fr. Serge Keleher

THAT could be your problem right there, if that is true it has proven to be a toxic relationship ripe for reform.

According to reports here Bishop Nicholas wanted to work with the BCC on common liturgy and books!

That is precious! What a blessing from heaven, what a gesture of fraternal grace! The hierarchy really failed us, Orthodox and Catholics alike when they allowed that opportunity to slip by. They failed the Body Of Christ when they missed that chance.

+T+
Michael

How very sad, unchristian and disgraceful to the Body of Christ. Lord have mercy on us!

Now, the question is how do we get past this sordid past and get our act together to reevangelize ourselves, so we can evangelize others?

How will the new Liturgy help advance the Gospel in the context of our authentic Eastern Christian spirituality? I don't see how.

AMEN to this!

For God's sake, it is 2006 and we are dying as a church. How can one leader be so narrow minded, choosing to kill off his church rather than heal the wounds of the past? What kind of Christianity is this?

With all due respect to Fr K, I've missed some information here. What is the title of this book and where can one purchase it?

Sam

Sam,

Check the books forum. All the information is there.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Many Thanks, Fr. Anthony. There it was, clear as day, all 134 posts-and I missed it, LOL!
Sam

That's very sad, what a missed opportunity.

This actually reminds me of something I heard recently. I was at liturgy a couple of weeks ago at an ACROD parish and I was talking to a guy who is on the parish council. There is a building on their property which I assumed they owned (it's right in front of the church) and I asked him what it was used for. He said it's owned by an insurance agency. He said there used to be an order of nuns that lived in the house (there are a couple of Latin and one BCC churches really close by) and that they got along really well with the nuns. For whatever reason the nuns moved or disbanded, and the property came up for sale. The church assumed they would be able to buy it. They were not able to, and they came under the impression there were people behind the scenes who prevented the parish from buying the building which is how it ended up being owned by this insurance agency.

May have nothing to do with this topic, but it reminded me of that story.

Andrew

Dear Father Serge,

I am very glad to see this posting from you. I have your book finally, and am reading it with a priest who was in California at the time of the establishment of the cathedral parish there, and so it is clear to us that you did handle this situation gracefully in your telling.

As it turns out I didn't really need to read your book in many of its parts. All I had to do was listen to our clergy tell their stories. They are all in your book, and more. There were no surprises.

And I do so like surprises!

It is a shame that the Metropolia has not done the same job of listening, don't you think?

There are the issues of temperament and personality. There is also the issue of ethnicity and the perceptions of and fears of encroachment, many of which are merely perceptions, too many of which are actual observations and so they too take a toll on a people and their willingness to "go along."

The one way NOT to deal with this historical issues is not to deal with them.

Part of our problem is this tendency to paper over the past and not look at the realities, not teach the next generation what happens when one or two men do THIS, or when whole parishes do THAT.

The loss of institutional memory, or the purposeful expunging of those records and that history is never a good way to "fix" a problem.

But then we see the few reactions to this thread and we see people ready to cut and run as shadows of the old realities are brought to light. What kind of fidelity is that?

Why run? Did the Christ turn on his heel when he was confronted with the weak and the sinful? No!!

He called them. And we call them Apostles. The Apostles taught bishops how to be bishops and it wasn't a pretty sight even in retrospect, in the very little bit we have left of the story in Scripture. I think we forget that when we look at who we are and how we got here.

At any rate, your book has done a service if it gets the Church to talking openly and who knows how it might inspire our clergy, inspire our despots.

But the worst thing to do is to seek the quick fix, to slam the door closed on the realities of our history, or to run when the going gets rough.

God bless you and your work, Father.

Eli

Fr. Serge,

Let me put in another part of the puzzle (a new part) and ask how it fits into the history of the Greek Church which has been set forth in this thread. In the Eparchy of Van Nuys, the Byzantine or Greek Catholic churhces (either term is acceptable to me) are filled with Roman Catholics who (like myself) were attracted to this Church by its tradition, orthodoxy and beauty. Perhaps we might say, the good, the true and the beautiful. Being part of this Church has been a journey to orthodoxy - in the Chestertonian sense - a romantic journey.

I have no angst against anyone (Orthodox, Ukranian, etc.). I think it's great that the vision Rome has given us (I say us because I formally returned to my mother's Church --Greek Catholic (Ruthenian) --she was the youngest of 14 children -- seven years ago) is to return to our orthodox heritage. By this I mean not only the worship, but I also mean orthodoxy in belief, i.e. of one mind with Peter. Hence, e.g., although I have no trouble with leaving the filioque out of the Creed, I believe it is necessary to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son and that the failure to believe that, leads one to reject the visible head of the Church who is now Benedict XVI. (It is this sense of orthodoxy which makes me, without any hesitation, reject inclusive language which I see as destructive of the natural (ie horizontal) order -- which seems to be the paticular "heresy" of the modern world.) I believe that the early Church in the East was united with Rome in mind and heart.) Of course, I say this with the caveat that most of the great heresies come from the East.

Our parish in New Mexico is filled with lots of people like myself (welcomed by the ethnic Greek Catholics who started the Church some 25 years ago) and it is alive and well. We have a recent vocation from our parish. We have children - which means at least a good number of my fellow parishoners are following Peter in his instruction on human life. We are building a pilgrimage chapel to Blessed Theodore Romzha, we host an annual vocations retreat for boys and young men--we call it a Byzantine ascetical boot camp--in the mountains of New Mexico.

My experience is not unique. There are many here in the southwest who have come to apprecitate and love this Church for its faithfulness to tradition, truth and beauty.

Now I compare this with some of my relatives who grew up in the Greek Catholic Church back east and I understand that there are churches which are closing. I notice one aspect of the those my age or older, they have not had many children or are not having many children. The church is shrinking not simply because of the diaspora which occurred but because one no longer sees many families of fourteen like my mother's family.


I look forward to your response.

lm

LM,

A quick ramble over lunch ...

You mention a key element that is missing from the mix. We are really the future of the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church here stateside.

We must make up a growing if not key part of the Church today ... especially in the few really thriving parishes.

In a few short years our older members will be gone. Most of their kids long ago left the old Latinized Greek Catholic Church, which no longer exists (or does it?). Most of our parishes will die.

Now, that leaves those of us who came to the Church on our own as converts, to return to our roots, or the native Greek Catholics committed to growing the church (and there are quite a few). And what happens to all our Byzanteens? The church we will leave them is sinking on our watch.

I suspect a fair amount of folks who are keeping the lights on in Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Van Nuys with their donations and toil did not trek east for a new Divine Liturgy. And the native Byzantines have not sacrificed everything to see the church flounder either!

It seems that those who really want to live the Rusyn Greek Catholic vocation are invisible to the Church.

Oh!!

Quite the contrary. In fact all this new spate of parish closings and new liturgical texts and cantor training and emphasis on the diaconate rather than on the presbyteral priesthood, the abbreviations, the inclusive language the ethnic cleansing is ALL being done with the imports clearly in mind.

One might say that you are the real inspiration for all of this frenetic housekeeping.

After all it tends NOT to be your parishes whose priests are being persecuted, and/or who are being closed out of hand.

I think you are not only visible but you are being offered as the principle cause for our great renewal.

What can I say, but "Thanks."

Eli

Well, the plan is backfiring and the demographical drivers are misunderstood.

The widest possible net of Byzantines -- native and newcomer -- are being alienated from the Church.

There is that.

Eli

Dear Father Keleher,

Thank you for those nice words about our pastor. He is a good priest, and he has helped me a lot over the years!

We had a very good talk about your book, but he didn't say if he knew you.

I feel bad that it sounds like our priest put all the responsibility for the New Liturgy on only one bishop. He didn't. I just didn't write down everything he said.

I asked him about the history of the Liturgy book, and where these ideas new came from.

He told me that the Archbishop is the only one who can issue a new Liturgy. It isn't up to the Bishops' Council, or any of the other bishops really. The Code of Canon Law says that it is the responsibility of the Archbishop, so we can't really just point to somebody else.

He said that most of these ideas were invented by the Franciscans at Sybertsville Pa., when the Archbishop was there. They invented most of these fights about the Liturgy, and they were experimenting even when some of the bishops we have now were there in the Franciscan Monastery. There were bitter fights about all this in the Byzantine Franciscans, and so much damage was done, that in the end it split them in two, and lead to the death of that community. Now the community has been taken over by a Roman Catholic province.

My priest thought it was a Franciscan thing. It is the Franciscan bishops that have brought that experimentation and fights to our Church. They've lived their whole life with it I guess, and so they think its normal!

Helen

Helen,

I believe you mean New Canaan, CO Friary. The Byzantine Friary at Sybertsville still exists although they have affiliated with a Latin Province of their Order. New Canaan split, but the experimenters are those who left and formed New Skete eventually joining the OCA.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Also one would have to take a very very careful look at what "experimenters" means in the context of this discussion on the currant Byzantine liturgical revisions. It certainly does not mean abbreviated liturgies and inclusive language or any other tortured constructions. And it certainly was not a movement adverse to Orthodoxy.

What we have left here in our Metropolia then are the "conservatives" from that time period.



Eli

Dear Friends,

I too have come across people who don't like Ukrainians! Go figure!

There are, it is readily admitted, Ukrainians who don't make it easy for others to like them . . . although who they are exactly is beyond me . . .

And I'd like to thank Helen for presenting such a fascinating thread!

It's always a shock to learn there are people, even bishops, who don't like you on the basis of where your parents come from.

So, what you are all telling me is if I ever should meet Vladyka Andrew - I should definitely not joke about Rusyns being "Ukrainians after all," right?

We also have clergy who just don't like Orthodox, unless they're as Latinized as we are!

Fr. Ireney Nazarko, OSBM once wrote an article on devotion to the Sacred Heart where he quotes St Dmitry of Rostov's statements about veneration of the Sacred Wound of the Side of Christ.

"Now that must truly have been a saint!" Fr. Nazarko exclaimed.

Ultimately, the dynamic among the Ukies is slightly different insofar as their cultural identity tends to override even religious differences.

And the fact that there are non-Ukrainians seeking to become integral members of the UGCC (and there are many already) is a kind of compliment to the Ukies that they actually are starting to warm to the idea.

For us, it is part of the realization that the Kyivan Church isn't only OUR property to the exclusion of others.

This is illustrated, for me, by a poignant moment in a movie about Christmas where the Three Magi come before the Holy Family.

In that interpretation, Mary is seen turning slightly away to protect the Baby Jesus from the strangers who are holding out their hands to touch Him.

But then St Joseph gently knudges her and says, ever so tenderly, "He doesn't just belong to us . . ."

And then one of the Magi puts out his finger and the Baby Jesus takes hold of it with His tiny hand.

I need to go blow my nose . . .


Alex

Yea. It's a strange world all right. Always something clogging up the sinuses.

I was thinking as I read your note that sometimes it is a lot better if people are given the opportunity to take out their own splinters.

When my ma used to dig out my splinters there was always a lot more blood and noise and very often the whole chunk never did come out and later it festered and got all full of pus and stuff.

It always seemed to be a better time of it when I took them out by myself.

Eli

Eli,

"Also one would have to take a very very careful look at what "experimenters" means in the context of this discussion on the currant Byzantine liturgical revisions. It certainly does not mean abbreviated liturgies and inclusive language or any other tortured constructions. And it certainly was not a movement adverse to Orthodoxy."

New Skete's reforms do include abbreviations, small amounts of inclusive language, and restoration/innovation depending on one's point of view. And many Orthodox look at New Skete disapprovingly.

Fr. Deacon Lance

An Orthodox bishop of my acquaintance visited New Skete a number of years ago. When I asked him what his impressions were, His Grace replied, succinctly but sufficiently: "They are very Uniate, and very Franciscan!"

Fr Serge

Fr. Serge,

I am not sure that either of those labels apply, although I can understand why the Bishop would say that, I think in truth they defy description. Their uses certainly must appear unique to others whether it be those used to typical Greek Catholic or Russian Orthodox usgaes. Bishop Seraphim of Ottawa seems to spend a lot of time there and that is sufficient endorsement for me.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Amazing. Helen, this has been an eye-opener for me. Thank you for this post. And if this true, this is so very sad and pathetic.

-- John

Agreed!

Helen, 'your priest' certainly had a lot to say to you.

IMHO if Ukrainians are not welcomed, Orthodox are not welcomed, we 'frown upon' Roman Catholics who have joined our church, we don't want Eastern European priests because they just want a ticket to America etc., and Converts from Protestantism will never be 'one of us'then what really is the point of calling the Ruthenian BC church a church at all?

If we are not welcoming to any and all who wish to worship then we then we are nothing more than an exclusive ethnic club with a president who calls himself bishop. This may very well explain the current empty clubhouses. Lets hang on to our 60 year old grudges and paranoia for another generation or so. I'm sure its what the Gospel of Christ teaches.

Sam

"He wanted to make sure that we had as little in common with them as possible, so that none of "them" would be able to pray or sing in our Catholic Churches, and none of "our people" would be able to pray or sing in their Orthodox Churches.

But the most important thing he wants is to make our books so 'non-Orthodox' that no Orthodox Church would even ever want to use them. And if our people get used to a more Catholic Liturgy they'd be lost if they visit an Orthodox Church, and they won't be able to pray or feel comfortable there."

The problem with this theory is our music is already different from everybody else, Catholic and Orthodox, except for ACROD. The new music as testified, by Job who has joined ACROD, confirms the new music is closer to both the original Slavonic and ACROD's version.

Our current translations and ACROD's already differ, but not so drastically that it would inhibit someone from particiapating at the others Liturgy.

ACROD is the only Orthodox jurisdiction that uses our books or would think of using them. Greeks and Antiochians use the Greek Rescension OCA uses the Nikonian Recension.

This dog just doesn't hunt.

Fr. Deacon Lance

So different "music" is enough reason to be a different Rite? ...a different Church?

That strikes me as a dangerous idea, but just the sort of idea that has already brought about different juristictions in the USA, Ruthenian & Ukrainian. When will that kind of parochial thinking end?

It is the books (not the music) that matter. I like good Ruthenian singing, good Russian music, good Greek singing, and I can pray with any of that, as long as the text is correct.

There is no music in the official books of the Ruthenian Recension, and we share them with other people who sing differently. (At least we used to, until the Revisionists have their way.)

What a disaster. I keep praying the bishops come to their senses before they take us down this road to a cemetery where "sui juris" churches are buried.

Nick

The problem with this theory is our music is already different from everybody else, Catholic and Orthodox, except for ACROD. The new music as testified, by Job who has joined ACROD, confirms the new music is closer to both the original Slavonic and ACROD's version.

Our current translations and ACROD's already differ, but not so drastically that it would inhibit someone from particiapating at the others Liturgy.

ACROD is the only Orthodox jurisdiction that uses our books or would think of using them. Greeks and Antiochians use the Greek Rescension OCA uses the Nikonian Recension.

I think I'm aghast!!!

So the music has *already* been changed to make us so different that nobody else but ACROD would ever consider (what? Using our books? Attending our liturgies?)and differentiate ourselves? Is this what I am to understand? And this is *already* the fait accompli? And because of *this* the rest of the liturgy has to be transformed (amended?) to conform to a deed already done?

That makes it seem we are at the end point of some insiders' conspiracy instead of at the initial stages of "reforming" ("re-forming?) the Liturgy....to what end?

I don't think I've been so shocked by anything posted here in years.

Staro

The Byzantine Catholics were also approached by the Ukrainians, the OCA, and other Orthdodox juristictions (not just ACROD).

One option, is to put your head in the sand, and build walls around the parish to keep "them" and other undesirables out.

Some people think that way, but there is no future in it.

Bishop Nicholas Samra was a prophet, and he urged us to put our little differences aside, and work together, cooperate, plan for the future in America. Otherwise we will be buried with our ethnicity, little customs and distinctiveness intact.

The Ruthenian Recension unites us to so many other Churches now. But it is a fragile link, when it is not valued or appreciated. When we separate ourselves from it, we will canonize parochialism, and condemn ourselves to the scrap heap of Churches that just didn't get it.

Nick

Deacon Lance is one of the few clergymen who seem to be pushing for this disaster. I don't really understand his point (if I did I think I would be as shocked as you are).

He has already said that he doesn't really agree with the Revision, but he is defending it anyway. That does make his support for the Revision a little weak.

Nick

"So the music has *already* been changed"

No, Prostopinje is different from Samoilka, Obikhod, Romanian, Greek, and all the other chants styles that exist in the Byzantine Christian world. Prostopinje is used by Rusyn, Slovak and Hungarian Greek Catholics and ACROD. Samoilka is used by Ukrainians, Obikhod by Russian, etc.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"Deacon Lance is one of the few clergymen who seem to be pushing for this disaster. I don't really understand his point (if I did I think I would be as shocked as you are).

He has already said that he doesn't really agree with the Revision, but he is defending it anyway. That does make his support for the Revision a little weak."

I am certainly not pushing for the Revision. I simply do not belive it to be the end of the world scenario many here present it to be.

But to go on record:

I dislike inclusive language and aside from updating brethren with brothers and sisters disagree with implementing it.

The other transaltion issues almost need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some changes seem to be just changes neither better or worse, and so the current text should be left. Some are corrections that should be made.

The new music is a pastoral issue. It is truer to the original but that is hardly the most important consideration. There are parishes that still sing everything in Tone 4. Some parishes don't have trained cantors. Use what will enbale the people to sing, it may be the old it may be the new.

Rubrics. I am in favor of the Anaphora aloud but that is the only change I feel strongly about.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Bless you, Father Deacon Lance! There are some folks posting here who think prostopinije is some novel kind of chant when in fact it has been around for hundreds of years. Only relatively recently has it been written down. The earlier renditions used other alphabets and church slavonic texts. In the twentieth century it began to be written down using the vernacular. The chant came from eastern Europe as an oral tradition mainly, which caused each parish to have slight variations in the chants they sang. Once written down, the prostopinije began to be more systematically learned and passed on.

Even though some jurisdictions try to be multi-ethnic, what often happens is that the majority ethnic chant form prevails. The majority usually sees no problem with this. I for one am not interested in a larger common music practice at the expense of Carpatho-Rusyn prostopinije within the BCC. What would Pope John Paul II have thought of such a thing, in light of his encyclicals encouraging the eastern churches to be faithful to their traditions?

Glad to hear it!

And I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting you.

Nick

There is a big difference between traditions and Tradition. Painted easter eggs are a tradition, a nice tradition, but not Tradition.

The Liturgy, the sacraments, the Faith, falls well within Tradition, and I think JPII was thinking about such things.

Styles of chant are closer to the first than the second.

If I move somewhere where there is no Byzantine Catholic Church (singing "our" chant), do I join a Roman Church, or another Byzantine Catholic Church (where they sing different)?

So many people who thought our Church was all about colored eggs and styles of singing left for the Roman Church or Protestant Churches when they moved away from Mom and Dad.

We need to be Eastern Catholics, and keep this great Tradition. Other 'traditions' are nice too, but not if they mean we can't cooperate, can't work together, can't pray together with other Eastern Catholics.

Nick

Other 'traditions' are nice too, but not if they mean we can't cooperate, can't work together, can't pray together with other Eastern Catholics.

I am not sure what to make of the above. Nowhere does it say that Ruthenians have to give up their small t traditions for the sake of being able to worship with other eastern catholics. Prostopinije may be a small t tradition, but there is no reason to suppose it has to be done away with in order to be able to worship with other traditions.

They don't have to "give up" their chant.

But why hold onto the chant tradition to the death, but at the same time give up the Ruthenian Recension? It just doesn't make sense. Somehow something doesn't add up.

Look at it this way. If you move to Utah, and there is no Ruthenian Church, but there is a R.C. Church, Protestant Churches, and a Ukrainian Church, where do you go?

Why did you pick that place? It should tell you what is most important.

Nick

Nick, the thing is I don't honestly believe that we are about to give up the Ruthenian Recension. (Gotta get my cantor's copy of the new book as soon as it's available.)

My goodness.

After all that's been said here in the past six or seven weeks, Jim, could you please tell us what that means to you? the Ruthenian Recension?

...and then could you tell us how many of the rest of you out there, cantors, deacons, some priests and our bishops would identify
Ruthenian recension, in precisely the same terms as you are going to use to define that for us here?


Eli

Eli, no to both requests. I don't think that my opinion of the Ruthenian Recension matters. What matters is the worship itself. The second question sort of answers itself, don't you think?

Then how can we assess your assertion that it is not going to be abandoned? If we don't know what you mean by Ruthenian Recension then what value is your statement to us? Or was it not meant to be of any value?

You are a cantor and a moderator here. You obviously have some idea, better than the rest of us, better than most of our clergy, of what is going on in fact and you won't even buttress an assertion with a definition?

That is not credible witness, James.

And as for you and the rest of the deacons and cantors and bishops, the only thing that I see that you have in common, to date, are words that tell us nothing of substance, or simply no words at all.

Eli

It's late in the evening, so I may have missed something. But I think I just found two separate issues which I have read in such a way that I am unable to make sense out of them.

Here's one quote:

This is a cross between polemic writing and sheer baloney. "Prostopinije", as any expert on Church-Slavonic liturgical chant will readily agree, is certainly related to Znammeny chant (books have been written about this). Samoilka is used by a small minority of Ukrainians. "Obikhod" in this context is a meaningless term, until someone explains precisely what Obikhod is meant. Both Russians and Ukrainians readily use quite a variety of liturgical chant, from the early Znammeny kept by the Old-Ritualists (which is breath-takingly beautiful) to the twentieth-century compositions of Maxim Kovalevsky, and on and on.

One does find occasional examples of Byzantine chant (which I think is what the quote means by "Greek" chant) used in the Slav Churches - but since Byzantine chant depends largely on meter, this is difficult to do in Church-Slavonic.

The particular problem with Prostopinije (and this does not deny that every chant tradition has problems of its own) is that it was first published in Hungarian and conformed to the accent rules of Hungarian, and when it was published in Church-Slavonic it evidently did not occur to the editors to follow the rules of Church-Slavonic accents. In some cases, this can drastically alter the meaning (check the last line of the Great Doxology for an example). Another problem - found in most chant traditions, incidentally - is that Prostopinije has also absorbed some folk melodies of different origins (I've heard - in Church-Slavonic, no less - the Cherubic Hymn sung to the melody of Nearer, My God, to Thee).

Prostopinije still awaits a definitive study (which I am certainly not qualified to provide). But the assertion that it is unrelated to the other Church-Slavonic chant systems is what I just called it: baloney.

Another poster writes that "we shall not give up the Ruthenian Recension". I have no idea what the poster means by "the Ruthenian Recension" or who, if anyone, is asking him to give it up. But I would suggest that the Church of which he is presumably a member (the Church, not the local parish) is much older than the books published in the nineteen-forties and it is worth-while discussing the liturgical history of this particular Church - and that I am qualified to do.

Since I don't think that anyone intended to write baloney, or to write an incomprehensible sentence, can someone take pity on me and shed some light on these two matters?

Fr. Serge

Back from the mountains:
Much to catch up on, but, working backwards, this "baloney" caught my eye first. What is baloney of course is the assertion that "it is unrelated...", which is Fr. Serge's alone. FD Lance, simply noted that "Prostopinje is different from ... " which of course it is. The difference between "unrelated" and "different" is enormous, so I don't undestand the confusion. In context, the "difference" merely pertained to the issue of what might be called "branding" raised by others. FD Lance correctly points out that the distinct chant already distinguished our liturgy, long before this recent revision.

I am very intrigued to hear the idea that accents were placed in Slavonic chants on the basis of published Hungarian chants. This idea seems so implausible that I am very interested to hear anything of its basis.

Btw, how is the pattern of accentuation - or pronunciation for that matter - in OS determined?

Came down from the mountain and the first think he thinks of is food.

I assume baloney is a close rellie of Polony. You Americans have so much choice when it comes to foods.

djs writes:

Check with anyone who knows the history of the chant book (Prostopinije) published by Bokshaj and Malinich. It appeared first in Hungarian, then in Church-Slavonic.

Almost all books published in Church-Slavonic have the accent marks on the words - see for yourself.

Fr Serge

Then how can we assess your assertion that it is not going to be abandoned? If we don't know what you mean by Ruthenian Recension then what value is your statement to us? Or was it not meant to be of any value?

I guess the rest of the quote won't post because it has too many words in it for the quote feature. Oh well.

Eli, just because you can think up questions for me, doesn't mean that I ought to give you answers. I am not here to debate you, just to offer a voice of reason and common sense about the pending implementation of the new book. I have been here before in different environments, and know that being demanding, strident, etc. will not make any difference when it comes to implementing a new document. If it is a done deal, then so be it. Once people have a chance to review it, they will decide how they can cope with it (or not). We are past the point of peer review and personal input for the new book.

Now here IS something that our clergy has known for some time.

Now we truly have come full circle.

Eli

I want to keep up with the thread through email alerts and have not figured out how to do so without posting in it. Please disregard.

Fr. Serge,

I said: "The problem with this theory is our music is already different from everybody else, Catholic and Orthodox, except for ACROD."

Starokatolyk said: "I think I'm aghast!!!So the music has *already* been changed to make us so different that nobody else but ACROD would ever consider (what? Using our books? Attending our liturgies?) and differentiate ourselves?"

I said: "No, Prostopinje is different from Samoilka, Obikhod, Romanian, Greek, and all the other chants styles that exist in the Byzantine Christian world. Prostopinje is used by Rusyn, Slovak and Hungarian Greek Catholics and ACROD. Samoilka is used by Ukrainians, Obikhod by Russian, etc."


I am aware of the relation of Prostopinje to Znamenny and other Slavic chant traditions but as it is it stands as a distinct form of chant from that used Ukrainians, Russians, Romanians, Greeks, and others. Starokatolyk seems surprised by this as if one should be able to m ove from Church to Church and hear exactly the same music and be able to join in the singing with no prior experience. Not to mention the fact that in many places ones is expected to keep their mouths shut and let the choir or cantors do the singing. I was not trying to be polemical or misinforming.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Even moving from one parish to another is apt to involve some degree of musical adaptability (not to mention other forms of adaptability). But there is no need to make too much out of this.

One Sunday, for reasons not immediately relevant, I happened to be in Paris with a group of Ukrainian friends from Canada, most of whom were in their mid-twenties to early thirties. I took them all to Holy Trinity Russian Greek-Catholic Church, where I was invited to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy. My companions went and sang with the choir. Afterwards they all spontaneously commented on how easy it was to sing with the Russian choir and how much they had enjoyed it. Since the unabbreviated Divine Liturgy took under 90 minutes, one may safely assume that the choir sang simple music (known in Russian as "prostoje"), which is easy enough for visitors, as my friends discovered.

Even strongly traditional znammeny is not impossible for a visitor - I've more than once been invited to sing with the chanters at an Old-Ritualist parish and had no trouble. The only really complicated piece they were using when I was there was the Cherubic Hymn, and the precentor, very courteously, said to me that this particular Cherubic Hymn required much practicing and, therefore, he would ask me to pray quietly rather than trying to sing with having practiced. Naturally I did - and was thankful, because the precentor was quite right; the Cherubic Hymn was exquisite but if I had tried to sing I would probably have damaged it.

It is also true that Prostopinije is far more important to the self-identity of those who use it than other chant forms tend to be to those who use them (with the exception of the Old-Ritualists, who really do consider znammeny essential). An openness to the rich wealth of music available for the Byzantine Liturgy would do the Ruthenians no harm at all.

Fr. Serge

It is also true that Prostopinije is far more important to the self-identity of those who use it than other chant forms tend to be to those who use them (with the exception of the Old-Ritualists, who really do consider znammeny essential). An openness to the rich wealth of music available for the Byzantine Liturgy would do the Ruthenians no harm at all.

I'm afraid that Fr. Serge's judgment call about no harm in introducing other music uses a sort of logic that Ruthenians have heard many times before. Introducing other traditions would be at the expense of what the Ruthenians now have and use. Are other jurisdictions doing this to any degree? I don't think so. Prostopinije is very much a part of what makes worship among the Ruthenians their own. It is a basic part of what it is to be Ruthenian.

Yes, they are - I refer you to the music books published by Saint Vladimir's Seminary, and I assure you that they are very much used in many parishes.

I've had to modify my understanding of the matter over the past several years - I said several times in the eighties that prostopinije was the key to the identity of the Greek-Catholics from the southern slopes of the Carpathians. But come to find out, such people as have recently arrived in the USA are attending Slovak Roman Catholic Churches, if they are from Slovakia, or Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Churches, if they are from Transcarpathia. So something is evidently more important than prostopinije here. Just what that something is, I don't know

Fr Serge

A side issue is that of 4-part harmony choirs versus unison congregational singing from a kliros. When it comes to a lot of material from outside the BCC, cantors for the latter have less to draw on. Most of St. Vladimir's stuff is for choir.

One of the things I miss are the natural harmonies sung by the older Slavic congregations. Introducing the English effectively squashed that in some places. Odd how that happened but if you happen to catch the rare Slavonic liturgy or if the priest takes some of the prayers in Slavonic, or the cantor starts, then the harmonies come right back.

Eli

It is often overlooked, but the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA has a strong tradition of harmonized choral liturgical music - just a few days ago was the first anniversary Liturgy for the repose of Daniel Kavka, who for many years directed one of the finest church choirs on the East Coast. Choral music is not at all foreign to this tradition.

Back in the Old Country, I attended a lovely choir festival in the nineties - and the choir of the Greek-Catholic Cathedral in Uzhhorod walked off with the first prize (and richly deserved that prize, may I say at once).

Fr. Serge

I've been reflecting on this since I wrote the above response to Helen's post; and I have been growing uneasy in my conscience. What if it's not true ? I'm not implying that Helen or her source lied, but what if the information was just wrong ? And, if it is true, what good are we doing about it ? Either way, I think we ought to be praying for our bishops. And, before posting more negative items about them, I think we should give our bishops the benefit of the doubt.

-- John

I didn't suggest that there was any necessity, or even reason, to flood the parishioners anywhere with a lot of new material, especially not all at once. Pick a simple piece, find three or four who don't mind learning it, and then practice it with the congregation. If you've picked the right piece, it will work (for a sample, try the Byzantine [Greek] tone for the Third Stasis of the Lamentations at Orthros of Holy Saturday (usually done Good Friday night). It's a guaranteed winner.

As with many things, patience and a peaceful, non-coercive approach can often work wonders. For that matter, incidentally, the same approach is good for reviving something that actually is prostopinije but has passed out of use in a given parish (or maybe was never used there to begin with).

Fr. Serge

It's funny but I never hear this mentioned by our current "schooled" cantors. I asked a friend once to ask if they ever heard of Doc Pauly and I got resounding silence. I am spelling by sound not sight but even still how hard can it be?

Eli

Pauley. Wilkes-Barre. St. Mary's. Studied under Bortnyansky's kid. Great Cantor. He and Danny Kavka were the best we had after Roman died.

There was a great deal of ink spilled here recently over whether or not the Novus Ordo was going to be an imepediment to renewed communion with Orthodoxy. Nearly all comers said there would be some negative impact as things stand.

So now it is too far fetched to say the same about an Inclusive Language liturgy in an eastern Catholic Church?

You generally offer a benefit of doubt where there is one. This liturgy has taken years and years to bring to its present state. It is no accident that it was tested in Passaic and it is no accident period. It is quite a calculated piece of unnecessary word-work, for even Father David suggests that it will not last as is.

Stunning.

Eli

So how is it that their legacy apparently has hit a stone wall? They might as well not have existed. We needed to import someone to teach us how to be Ruthenian?

Eli