I now know several of the minute details about the proposed liturgy but don't really know the big picture. Can you give it to me in a nutshell, please?

For instance, is this ONLY the Ruthenians? Only one eparchy? Is this a common practice to revise the liturgy? (I've seen several references to other revisions/translations/updates.) Is the only real problem that it is inclusive? (I understand that that is problem enough, but is it the major one?) What's the big picture?

From what I can understand there are three major problems:

1. The use of inclusive language which seems to place secular concerns of a few decades ago above theological concerns.

2. Other and sundry translations of words that seem to obscure rather than shed light upon meanings.

3. The way it is being presented. It seems strange that Eastern hierarchs would treat us as the great unwashed or worse as enemies. Yet this seems to be the case. The new translation could be an occassion for great renewal but by pushing it upon the people it appears that the bishops are going to buy the very problems they are trying to avoid. It is a shame.

I think some see each of these as the main problem. I see #3 as the greatest problem. It's an opportunity wasted just when we need bold and compassionate leadership we get something else. It is a real shame.

Apparently the commission and bishops are determined to promulgate the liturgy as a fait accomplished before they present it to the people.

What a shame. It will be left to the rest of us through prayer and much energy to make this into a positive when it should already be a positive.

It is extremely confusing and frustrating to see this happening.

CDL

It occurs to me that some may think that these are my issues with the liturgy. As I've said several times if there were no conflict I would accept almost any liturgy translation put forward. Yet, there obviously are many questions about the translation which could, I believe, be easily addressed and answered and if needed be amended. I have never taken any stand on what some see as inclusive language. Others have and I simply reported that they have. I have never made any claims about any of the other issues that have been raised. I think I've avoided these issues because it was such a long and arduous journey for me to make the conversion. I gave up almost everything I knew for the love of the Eastern Catholic Church.

Yet, here is a commission and a hierachy that is telling me that they have very little respect for this sacrifice. I've read that converts are just trouble makers and the only reason we need them is so that the Church will live into the next generation. I've read that some consider all converts as troubled Latin Trads or crazy Protestants who want their own way and will force it upon the Church.

I apologize if I've ever said or done anything that would make anyone have that impression of me. There may well be Troubled Trads or Crazy Protestants who converted for the wrong reason but I'm not a Troubled Trad. I wish I knew Latin well enough to be one. I may be crazy and may have been a Protestant but I began my conversion over 30 years ago.

Again, I'm not trying to change our Church. I'm very happy with it. I wish it to grow. I wish that the commission would set aside its defensiveness and simply show the translation as it is now formulated, show us how it will help us become more vital, and be open to the changes that people have consistently brought up.

Is the commission so unsure of its translation that it must force it upon the people in the face of their appeals to see it ahead of time? This is the impression that the commission is giving. Why else won't they show us and educate us? Why?

I still believe the BC Church has a future and that the liturgy can be the spark that will make that future very bright.

CDL

Are there something like opposing camps in all of this? There seem to be a few running battles going on in different threads here. I can't really make sense of who is pushing what, or who is in disagreement with somebody else.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Andrew

Andrew,

I would say there are three camps.

1. Those that favor the new Liturgicon.

2. Those that favor complete adherence to the 1965 Liturgicon. Few or no abbreviations.

3. Those that favor the 1965 Liturgicon but allow many abbreviations and some features of the 1905 Liturgicon.

There is probably also a subcamp who favor the new rubrics but not the translation. 1 and 2 are porbably in the minority and 3 is in the majority, at least in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Wondering,

This is only the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, Eparchies of Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys.

The problems various people have with it:

1. Inclusive language, even though it is horizontal and sparingly used.

2. Changes to the current translation that some feel aren't needed becasue the new translation isn't all that better that it would be worth making the people relearn texts they have memorized.

3. The new Liturgicon does not print all the text and rubrics found in the 1965 Liturgicon, i.e. missing Small Litanies and rubrics, etc. and therefore prevents apriest from celbrating the full Litrugy if desired.

4. Music. Music has been recast to be more faithful to the Slavonic originals. This is a change from what we have been singing for 40 years. Many question whether it is worth going back in this regard, if it will disturb the faithful.

Fr. Deacon Lance

5. Language changes that also make the theology less clear if not in outright error.

Eli

Thanks Fr. Deacon. I realize I could probably figure this all out on my own, but there’s a lot to wade through. I have a few more questions too based on your response.

I have heard the term “Ruthenian Rescension” used many times. When people say that, what exactly do they mean?
What are the differences between the 1905 and the 1965 Liturgikon?
Are both the Typikon and the Liturgikon changing with this new translation?
I have heard the name of “Fr. David” mentioned a number of times, is he an important figure in one of the above three camps?
Lastly, which of the above most closely resemble how the services are ordered and worded in the ACROD?

Nutshell answers would be most welcome.

Also, please don’t think I’m asking to make anyone angry or upset. I’m just curious and would like to understand the issues being discussed.

Thanks.

Andrew

4. Music. Music has been recast to be more faithful to the Slavonic originals. This is a change from what we have been singing for 40 years. Many question whether it is worth going back in this regard, if it will disturb the faithful.

If we are trying to attact new members we have to look outside our Slavonic originals.

Many of the parishes have few faithful members and no cantors. Chances are that these parishes will continue to use the music they know. Who is going to teach them the "new way"

The Metropolitan Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh has been teaching the "new musical settings" for some four years now, and has a website with a great deal of the music online. But in addition, the proposed peoples' book has ALL sung text written out WITH MUSIC (several versions for some of the hymns), and the Music Commission has had the music recorded and plans to make it available on CD to every parish (and for sale to cantors) if/when the new book is released.

The "new music" (which is largely the old music, but without the radical "dumbing down" that took place in the 1960's) is in some ways independent of the changes to the texts, and could be used with either the old or new translations, as the bishops decide. It involved both an attempt to keep the older melodies, and to produce a "common minimum standard" for chanting. As was explained at the Cantor Institute, we know many parishes will keep other melodies of their own, but all Ruthenian Catholics (and especially all cantors) should know common melodies so they can sing together on pilgrimage, at other parishes and events, etc.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Cantor, Ss. Peter and Paul Byzantine Catholic Church
Endicott, New York

Andrew,


"I have heard the term “Ruthenian Rescension” used many times. When people say that, what exactly do they mean?"

After several years of study and research, the Oriental Congregation decided that the Liturgical uses of the Eparchies of Lviv, Peremyshyl, Stanislaviv, Mukachevo, Preshov, Hadudorog, and Krizevci constituted a use of the Byzantine Liturgy older than the Niconian/Synodal Use of the Moscow Patriarchate but not analagous to the Old Rite, although sharing some features. Among the Orthodox the only Churches that use this Recension would be ACROD, UOC-USA and Canada, and UAOC.

"What are the differences between the 1905 and the 1965 Liturgikon?"

The 1905 Liturgikon had several Latinizations in the rubics that were purged in the 1941 and 1965 Liturgicons.

"Are both the Typikon and the Liturgikon changing with this new translation?"

Only the Liturgicon.

"I have heard the name of “Fr. David” mentioned a number of times, is he an important figure in one of the above three camps?"

Fr. Archpriest David Petras, SEOD is professor of Liturgy at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary and a member of the IELC. He would be in Camp 1 but I think his ideas are more subtle than credited here.

"Lastly, which of the above most closely resemble how the services are ordered and worded in the ACROD?"

In terms of structure and rubrics the standard ACROD Liturgy does not differ much from ours. For many years ACROD used both our Liturgicons and Pew Books, some still do. Their current Pew Book is almost exactly like our current one, save they print the Beatitudes. The new Liturgicon and Pew Books would be even closer as they print the Beatitudes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks, I started a thread specifically about the Ruthenian Rescension.

What is it specifically that people object to? Is it just the style of English?

Also, what is the IELC?

Andrew

Andrew,

Look under any thread in this subsection. Complaints are manuy and diverse.

Modern English has been used since 1965 and even before that so that is not the problem.

IELC is Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon and everyone else,

I want to thank you for the information so far. I'm reading and learning from it all!

Another simple question:

Using current time tables, when is the revised liturgy supposed to begin being used?