Perhaps a direct language comparison between at least one of the more standard editions used by BCC Ruthenians in English with the proposed revised liturgy- line for line- would be helpful- WITHOUT editorial opinions. There is less confusion when people can actually see an objective comparison of one with the other directly. Would a comparison of the red book with the revised liturgy be best? No posturing required.

Nothing could be easier, although it will cost a bit of money. Print the two versions of the service on facing pages. This requires no comment whatever, other than the briefest of prefaces stating that this is a study edition for the purpose of those who wish to compare the two.

The only challenge of sorts arises because the recasting is very much shorter than the full text given in the red book - so the facing pages must be arranged in such a way as to have the corresponding elements of the Divine Liturgy facing each other. But that's all right; it will simply mean a lot of blank spaces in the currently proposed version - and the people who use the comparison volume can use the blank spaces to make notes.

In fact, it's in general best to leave wide margins, so that those who wish to make notes will have plenty of space for the purpose.

One other suggestion: include footnotes giving the Scriptural references (of which there are many).

Fr. Serge

Perhaps an even simpler alternative would be to directly compare the portions of the liturgy that the congregation is doing.

I'm not sure that I grasp the point of that suggestion. But it would be easily accomplished.

Anyway, in the absence of indications of overwhelming demand, take a copy of the 1965 book and a copy of the proposed recasting, open them both on the desk in front of you, and see what you see.

Fr Serge

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

After reading your post above, I see you are still the Father Serge I knew and loved (and still do) those many years ago!

(Whatever happened to your Chapel of St Seraphim of Sarov?)

Alex

Fr. Keleher, I have finally seen the fall 2004 final version on a link provided from the Patronage website and, as far as the congregational portion is concerned, it is almost identical to what we are already using in my parish. There must be some very different versions back east that I have not been exposed to, though I was used to the OCA version prior to becoming Byzantine (Ruthenian).

Not being acquainted with the Arizona text, I am unable to comment.

Fr Serge

Fr. Serge, using the October 2004 Final Version on the Patronage website, about the only significant difference between it and our old pew book (1993 Levkulic, published by Seminary Press) is the use of Theotokos in the place of Mother of God, which is also gradually being introduced. From attendance at other parishes within the eparchy, I'd also say that we are typical. So, based on all the venting here, it appears to me that it is likely that the introduction of the new pew book in the west will be less volatile. There may be concerns about some of the music as I have mentioned elsewhere because of compromises, but even that I cannot honestly say until I see the music firsthand that folks are worried about.

I will be travelling to the Pittsburgh area the end of October, so I look forward to attending services within the Archeparchy itself, and seeing just what differences exist there. Maybe I'll be able to purchase the new book there by then.

Jim said:
<<The only significant difference between it and our old pew book ... is the use of Theotokos in the place of Mother of God...">>

This is only partly true. Many of the rubrics have already been in use of our eparchy, but not the so-called inclusive language.

We haven't dropped the term "for us men" from the Creed.

Remember, we are only talking about the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. But we haven't seen the Liturgy of St Basil, the Pre-Sanctified, the troparia, prokeimena, etc. If they followed the same principles as in the Chrysostom revision, we are in for a good amount of surprises.

One improvemnt will be in time to come, when Byz people will ask "what is a pew book". Did they smell or something?

I advocate turning them into firewood or selling the Protestants. They are nice on the porch as well.

Oh I notice they have dropped reference to the Monastics.

I'm not sure if the exact quote goes like this: "Where they burn books, soon they burn people." Attributed to Heinrich Heine, a German Jew. It is well not to overreact to what you don't agree with.

Lazareno, as far as I know, the IELC was to work on the St.John Chrysostom and St. Basil liturgies. Other modifications of wording, such as troparia and prokeimena, may have to do with being more faithful to the original than what we have been using. I am not sure how extensive the IELC's charge is. Are you?