The following is reposted from page 9 of the thread “Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy – 1” in the books forum. I am reposting here in the “Revised Divine Liturgy” forum for two reasons: 1) it is a conversation that I believe is important to our Church and 2) since it is not directly about Father Serge’s book it really doesn’t belong in that thread.

--Begin Repost from Father David --

In regard to the last two postings by the Administrator, I will reply, trying to be as brief as posible, since we simply go around in circles on these point.

1) The principles brought forth by the Administrator: that an individual church cannot publish a liturgical book unless they are in literal conformity with the Ruthenian liturgical books of 1941-1973, and that changes cannot be introduced except by unanimous consent are simply his own opinions, which, if adopted, would make even organic development (allowed by Vatican II, the Code of Canon Law and the Liturgical Instruction of 1996) impossible. Indeed, following this principle, we should not even have the vernacular, since the bulk of the Byzantine Rite (the Greek and Russian Churches) refuse to allow the vernacular. The proposed books were in fact permitted by the Oriental Congregation (which is a fact, whether the Administrator wishes to admit it or not), and conform to the Ruthenian Recension in spirit and allow for some organic development. The Administrator is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension. His "principles" are designed to maintain the status quo and, of course, would continue to permit priests to do what they want for their parishes.

2) A translation can be changed only if it is incorrect? Why? Varying translation can be correct, yet one can be better, why not choose the better. Note that I am speaking here only in principle, not with regard to any particular translation. How that applies to the Our Father (which Fr. Serge thinks is incorrect) is quite unclear. And in regard to translation, the Liturgy Commission used the Greek text as the basis, and corrected it to the Slavonic only when necessary. The 1964/65 translation used the Slavonic as a basis and corrected it to the Greek - because they didn't know Greek well.

3) "like attempting to prune dead branches from a tree in the middle of winter." I think the real winter was from 1965-1995, when any movement to a more Eastern form of worship was resisted. Metropolitan Judson began a new spring, and the Administrator would like to cut back the buds before they bloom. A moratorium on gardening metaphors would aid dialogue!

4) I don't need to explain the "fact" that the anaphora became silent before the Greek vernacular changed for the simple reason that it us not a "fact." The Administrator simply presupposes this and I guess he considers his presuppositions to be "facts." I hardly think so. The praying aloud of the anaphora does not even require a change in rubrics.

5) "The Orthodox are in the early experimental stages." Changes and restorations have been proposed and done for over a century. Read Marcel Mojzes' book, "Il Movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine." The Administrator seems to think that eveything that happens begins with his consciousness of the fact.

6) His comments on the Paschal scheduling of services show that many of his problems are Passaic problems.

Fr. Dave

--End Repost from Father David --

I agree with Father David that sometimes these discussions go round in circles. But repetition can sometimes be very useful (we see this with the repetition of litanies in the Liturgy). Father David’s post packs a good deal of information and opinion in his six points. Much of it is demonstrably wrong. I think it best to break each point down to best focus my comments.

Actually, they are quite a bit more than just my opinions.

Father David wrote: an individual church cannot publish a liturgical book

Here in the United States we have a multiplication of both eparchies and church <sui iuris> that do use the same language (English); are located within the same territory (there are even parishes almost next door to one another). This requires that the all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension in the English speaking world prepare and authorize standard translations of all the liturgical texts of the Ruthenian recension.

I ask our Council of Hierarchs to work with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension to work together to prepare a single, normative translation of all of our liturgical texts. I further call upon our Council of Hierarchs to appeal to Rome to insist that all of the Catholic Churches of the Ruthenian recension cooperate. We already know that at least two bishops of Orthodox Churches that are part of the Ruthenian recension are interested in such a project.

I understand that this is a major task, and that until such a time we will need to keep producing our own books. But let these books be as faithful to our tradition as is possible so that they might be used by everyone and, in that way, contribute to the future common translation.

Father David wrote: unless they are in literal conformity with the Ruthenian liturgical books of 1941-1973

In order to have an accurate observance of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy we need to have accurate translations of the texts of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgical Books – not something that is different. The official Liturgical Books of the Ruthenian Recension are those published between 1941 and 1973. The Bishops of all the Churches which are part of the Ruthenian recension are responsible for the faithful protection and accurate observance of the Liturgy which we hold in common. Here in the United States this includes the responsibility to provide the Church with editions in English that are as literally faithful to the original texts as is possible.

Have we taken into account the practice of the Orthodox? Clearly we have not. No other Byzantine Catholic Church let alone Byzantine Orthodox Church is mandating similar revisions of the Divine Liturgy.

Do we know the tradition we share with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)? No, we do not. We cannot know something we have not lived.

Do we respect the tradition we share with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)? No, we do not. We cannot respect something we refuse to know.

Does this proposed reform take us closer to the customs of the Orthodox than do the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension? No, it does not. In fact, this proposed revision takes us away from not only our brethren in the Orthodox Churches it takes us further away from our brethren in the Catholic Byzantine Churches!

The only way to avoid any unnecessary differentiation between the liturgical books of the Ruthenian Catholic Churches and the Ruthenian Orthodox Churches is to keep the editions produced for the Ruthenian recession by Rome from 1941-1973 as normative. English language editions of these books must be in literal conformity (as literally faithful as is possible in quality English). Books that are not literally faithful to the official standard (i.e., the proposed Revised Liturgy) create differentiation not only between the Ruthenian Catholic Churches and the Ruthenian Orthodox Churches but also between the different Catholic Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension.

Father David wrote: that changes cannot be introduced except by unanimous consent

Admitting organic change must be done while keeping in mind the primary need to foster the mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians. For us, this is especially both our relationship with other Catholic Ruthenian Churches as well as our relationship with the Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. Unanimous consent might not be possible between us and all of the Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. But is certainly possible between us and the other Catholic Ruthenian Churches. And if we simply wait until the Orthodox Churches adjust their books and then adjust ours we can have both organic progress and stay current with Orthodoxy.

We must remember that organic change occurs over time and is led by the Spirit. It cannot be forced or mandated. The new custom of reading of the Resurrection Gospel at the doors of the Church at Pascha Matins is an example of organic progress among both the Catholic and Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. It is spreading rapidly. When this custom has spread to the point that it is the majority custom among both Catholic and Orthodox Ruthenians it would be legitimate for the bishops of the Ruthenian recension to agree unanimously to officially add it to the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension.

Unanimous consent among all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension is certainly possible. It is just that it is not as quick and efficient as we impatient Americans would like.

Father David wrote: Indeed, following this principle, we should not even have the vernacular, since the bulk of the Byzantine Rite (the Greek and Russian Churches) refuse to allow the vernacular.

One can look at the quick spread of the use of modern languages in the Divine Services as an example of organic progress. Here in America we can see how the use of English in the Divine Services has grown to be normative for most Churches. Most of the switch from Church Slavonic to English occurred in less than two generations! We see the switch from Greek to English in Greek parishes making rapid progress in the past 20 years. It is now more common to hear English than it is to hear Church Slavonic or Greek. [We can also treat the adoption of languages like Ukrainian here in North America as an organic development, though it is probably temporary in nature and will likely be gone in a few generations.]

The issue of language in the Greek and Russian Churches is not one where they refuse to use the vernacular. These Churches consider “Liturgical Greek” and Church Slavonic to be vernacular languages. I do not know either fluently but those who do tell me that a reasonable comparison to modern speakers is the English of the King James Bible times two for Church Slavonic (twice as antiquated) and times three for Liturgical Greek. A friend from Russia assures me that the people who fill the Churches there can understand the Divine Services. My maternal grandmother spoke “Po-Nashemu”, Russian, Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian and English. My mother remembers her mom telling her that she understood the texts of the liturgy, but just not every word. [Perhaps Chaucer would be a better comparison here than the King James Version of the Bible?]

We can also consider the continued use of the King James Version of the Bible by many Protestants as almost the equivalent of the use of Elizabethan English by some Byzantine Churches. The KJV and the Elizabethan style of English are not as antiquated as Church Slavonic or Liturgical Greek but I think the comparison is not an unfair one.

Father David wrote: The proposed books were in fact permitted by the Oriental Congregation (which is a fact, whether the Administrator wishes to admit it or not),

My only comments on this letter have been and continue to be that it holds no authority until made public (which is typical of Vatican decrees) and that Father David and others should not attempt to appeal to the permission letter until they can legitimately do so.

Myself, I cannot wait to see a copy of this once the bishops make it public (should they decide to claim Vatican approval for this Revision). If indeed it does direct things (like inclusive language) I already have bets for dinner with two separate friends that the letter was written by Father Robert Taft, SJ. Father Taft openly supported the use of inclusive language of the type used in the Revised Liturgy. Surely the date of the letter is before Liturgiam Authenticam was issued and put an end to the debate in the Catholic Church (at least for the current generation).[/i]

Father David wrote: and conform to the Ruthenian Recension in spirit and allow for some organic development.

Conformity to the Ruthenian recension “in spirit” is not conformance to the Ruthenian recension. Those who support a return to the 1905 Liturgicon also claim they are supporting the spirit of the Ruthenian recension. Claims of conformance ‘in spirit” are by definition extremely subjective. They cannot be measured. Claims of conformity “in spirit” are made only because the change cannot be objectively justified. Conformity “in spirit” - like “the spirit of the age” - changes with each generation. Such changes must be adamantly opposed and must not be allowed to succeed.

As I noted in previous discussions, our Church is not at the point where it can document any organic development as part of the official Liturgy. [I will demonstrate later that the proposed changes do not qualify as “organic”.]

It is clear that the first requirement of liturgical renewal in the Ruthenian Church is to rediscover our liturgical tradition and be faithful to it. This means finally implementing and living our Liturgy as directed by the Ordo Celebrationis and as given in all the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension (published from 1941-1973).

We must implement and faithfully live our Ruthenian recension in the fullest way possible before even considering an update. We have not yet begun this process. Indeed, we cannot begin it until we have literally faithful editions of all of our liturgical books in English.

Rediscovering and living our tradition MUST precede updating.

Father David wrote: The Administrator is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension.

On this I fully agree! I will also point out that Father David is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension. Nor is any single member of any of the eparchial or inter-eparchial liturgical commissions. Nor is any liturgical commission of our Church or any other Church within the Ruthenian recension. Nor is any individual bishop or even the Council of Hierarchs of the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. The liturgical legislators of the Ruthenian recension are, as a minimum, all those Catholic bishops that make up the Ruthenian recension (i.e., Rusin, Ukrainian, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and etc.). In full they are all these plus all the bishops of the Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension. Our Council of Hierarchs has the authority to publish translations (working in concert with other in our recension). They also appear to have the authority to publish translations that would qualify as temporary in nature until common translations can be prepared. They have the authority to issue liturgical directives. They do not have the authority to alter the Liturgicon.

Father David wrote: His "principles" are designed to maintain the status quo…

Here I am confused and ask Father David to explain. I have been consistent in my position that our bishops finally promulgate the Ordo and the 1942 Liturgy (as given in the 1964/1965 English edition). My meager efforts in providing books for our parishes to use during the past 25 years supports my position here. Father David’s claim here is demonstrably false. An accusation that I support the “status quo” is unsupportable unless one defines the “status quo” as the official 1942 Ruthenian recension.

Father David wrote: and, of course, would continue to permit priests to do what they want for their parishes.

Here again I am confused and ask Father David to explain. I have been consistent in advocating that the Council of Hierarchs finally implement the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and the Ordo Celebrationis as normative for our Church. I have also been clear in stating that mandating the 1942 Liturgy won’t mean that all of our priests embrace it. The effort will need to include education and example, beginning with that by our bishops and at the seminary. While there are surely a number of older clergy who will never adopt anything different than what they are doing now, it should be possible to get 80% of our parishes close to the official standard about 10 years. The best way to do this (to do anything, really) is to demonstrate how spirit-filled and dynamic the Liturgy can be. This generates the “we want this at our parish how can we get it” attitude that leads to success.

If anything will lead to a continued “status quo” (meaning as it is now in many parishes) the implementation of the Revised Liturgy will. Here in Passaic, which has had most of the rubrics of the Revised Liturgy for the past decade (with a few “Borsukisms” thrown in) most of the parishes only follow the revised rubrics closely when the bishop is actually present. The revisions have met with opposition almost everywhere. Some priests take only some of the new rubrics. Others have made no changes at all. The Revised Liturgy has only been successful in uniting both Vostochnicks and Latinizers together in opposition to the changes. Implementation of the Revised Liturgy at this point will only leave us with two sets of rubrics and translations from this point forward and disunity within our Church. In a sense we will become like the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States, which appears to have four authorized English translations (and lets not forget the UC parishes that still use our 1964/1965 Pittsburgh edition).

In truth, this whole plan to revise the Liturgy is nothing more than Father David and a few of his fellow reformers doing “what they want” with the Divine Liturgy.

One does not make unnecessary changes to texts because one respects the people who have memorized those texts over a lifetime of prayer. The text of the Lord’s Prayer is left alone in almost all of the Catholic Churches using English because it has been memorized for generations. This text has become one with the people. Father Serge has pointed out several inaccuracies in this text. One can open most Bibles and find more accurate versions. Yet the Church does not demand the people change because the Church recognizes that stability in prayer is important. You don’t go messing with someone’s prayer life unless it is absolutely required. Anyone who thinks that the people won’t notice change and be affected by it does not have even an elementary understanding of the relationship between language and prayer.

The reason to continue with the commonly known texts in use for the past 40 years is - !! – because they are commonly known! If they are accurate they do not need to be changed. Someone’s opinion of perfect is very often the enemy of something that is perfectly good.

Would Father David have gone to the older folks in 1960 and given them updates to the Church Slavonic version of the Divine Liturgy – something they had committed to memory?

Would he have told them that what they and their parents had prayed for generations needed improvements?

Has he not heard of the aftermath of the Nikonian Reforms among the Old Ritualists?

Or even recently the decision of the USCCB not to implement certain more accurate texts of the Roman Mass simply because the people have now memorized them after 40 years and they respect the people?

When you change texts that people have committed to memory for a lifetime you are impacting them at the deepest levels of their relationship with the Lord.

The Greek text is not normative for us. The Church Slavonic text as given in the 1942 Sluzebnik is normative for us. The proposed text should be abandoned at once and one prepared that is accurate to the text that is normative for us. Should changes be desired they need to be agreed upon by all the Churches that use the Ruthenian recension. Greek should be used only to interpret what is ambiguous in Church Slavonic. What is ambiguous in both Slavonic and Greek should be left ambiguous in English.

No, Father David. The tree that needs to move from the dormant state of winter into spring so that it can blossom is the tree of our official Ruthenian recension. Your personal experiments can wait until our Church is fed with the fruit of our own liturgical tradition for several generations. It is only after celebrating and being nourished by the fullness of our own liturgical tradition that we will be in a position to allow experimentation.

Can you not see that you are demanding multi-generational patience for your experiments while denying the same patience to allow the restoration of what is legitimately ours? How can you continue to claim a love and respect for the Ruthenian recension when you are crusading that it not be allowed to last into spring before you reshape the dormant branches to your personal taste? Why won’t you explain your adamant position against promulgating the Ordo and allowing our Church to experience the fullness of the Ruthenian recension? Are you afraid that the Church will see that your personal preferences would be rejected, so that you must force them upon us now? I really wish you would explain this.

The one who proposes change – especially mandated change – must document his claims. It is very interesting that Father David has adopted the tactic that those who propose change must be trusted and embraced and must not be asked to support their claims while those who appeal to what is officially ours are expected to document their positions. [Ironically my posts on the topic of liturgy and liturgical reform are all very well documented while Father David’s are almost not documented at all.]

Father Serge notes in his excellent review of the proposed Revised Liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states:

“…in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence.”

Later, Cardinal Ratzinger states:

“…as far as I can see… silence especially, might constitute communion before God.”

All of the evidence points to parts of the Anaphora being prayed quietly from the earliest times – long before the languages used developed past the point of no longer being the vernacular. Father David might like to believe otherwise but what he believes is simply not factual.

Then there is the issue that he has stated that it will take at least another generation for the Roman Catholics to continue the custom of praying the Anaphora aloud before the fruit can be seen. Why is he so insistent upon mandating this experiment upon our Church when there is yet no fruit from the experiment now going on in the Roman Catholic Mass? Especially when the current pope has indicated that silence might be best?

My position here is still the only logical position. The rubrics in our official Liturgicon are not specific as to whether the priest should pray this prayer quietly or aloud. If we leave the rubric alone and do not legislate further we allow for organic growth. If it is the will of the Spirit it will occur and no mandate will be necessary. Then the liturgical books can be adjusted in the typical Byzantine way – generations after customs are already widespread.

I certainly agree with Father David that changes have been proposed for over a century.

I disagree with Father David that they have been formally done – either over a century or at all.

But I again invite Father David to prove me wrong by providing a listing of Byzantine Liturgicons – Catholic and Orthodox – that abbreviate the Divine Liturgy, rewrite the rubrics and mandate that the priest pray many of the presbyteral prayers – especially the Anaphora – aloud.

One can find experimentation here and there. Experimentation in a few places is not a formal change to the Liturgy. One does not formalize change based upon someone’s ideas that are only in the early experimental stages. The most radical experiments in the Byzantine Liturgy occurring today are probably those at New Skete. New Skete’s experiments are pretty much rejected by all of Orthodoxy. They certainly have not been formalized as normative for all parishes of the Orthodox Church in America.

Again, Father David is demonstrably incorrect.

This clearly is not a Passaic problem.

I have compared the October 2004 rubrics with those currently mandated in Passaic. They are almost the same (except for a few “Borsukisms”). When the mandates were put into effect it was made clear that the changes were for the most part what would be mandated with the Revised Liturgy. Further, the clergy have been told by one of the Passaic members of the IELC that they need not fear the Revised Liturgy because the rubrics are already in place in Passaic.

The example of a mandated change to a service other than DL that I used that is chasing people from our parishes – the once mandated Vesper / Basil Divine Liturgy / Paschal Matins (here in the Passaic Eparchy) - is essentially Father David’s work. The mandated rubrics are almost identical to those given in the booklet: “Holy Saturday Vigil: Vespers with Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Resurrection Matins”, Eparchy of Parma, 1988, Nihil Obstat: The Very Reverend David M. Petras, Censor deputas, Impramatur: The Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, D.D., Bishop of Parma”. This book is the first official book that merged these services together and eliminated the little litanies between the odes of Pascha Matins (and etc.). While this booklet was not promulgated for use in Passaic most of the rubrics were. After the first year in which this was celebrated I complained to Bishop Andrews about the poor theology it was based upon (the Eucharist is always the high point of the Liturgy – and that Matins always precedes the Eucharist, and that the Vespers / Basil Liturgy was never like the modern Roman Catholic “Holy Saturday Vigil” but was primarily a Baptismal Liturgy and that we ought not to imitate it). Bishop Andrew admitted that the service was long and then said that Father David Petras said that this is what our tradition is supposed to be and go talk with him.

What is the result of Father David’s Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Resurrection Matins being promulgated in Passaic? Thud. Everyone complained. At my local parish here in Virginia the numbers dropped from 350+ from the last year of the old Matins / Chrysostom Divine Liturgy (which started at 10 PM) to about 50 the second year this Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Matins combination was celebrated. Reaction to this mandate has been similar in most parishes. Complaints from priests forced Bishop Andrew to relent and to make this service optional. But the damage is done and the people have left many of our parishes and are no longer celebrating Pascha with us. This past year the Vesper / Basil Divine Liturgy had about 35 people (it used to have 50-60 when it was at noon) and the Resurrection Matins / Chrysostom Liturgy had about 60. The missing people are not all at the morning Divine Liturgies. Most have gone elsewhere (or worse – no where at all). Another bad outcome of this horrid experiment is that now that parishes are forbidden to celebrate the Vesper / Basil Liturgy before 5 PM a growing number of parishes are simply dropping it all together.

We have seen the same thing happen here in the Passaic parishes which celebrate the Revised Liturgy. There is a noticeable drop in the numbers of people. This drop is not occurring in those parishes which have refused to implement the reforms. Ask the pastors, they know.

--

Again, the way forward here is for the Council of Hierarchs to formally declare the Liturgical Revision dead so that our Church may begin to recover from this misguided experiment. Next they should finally declare the “Ordo” as official for our Church, celebrating it themselves and mandating that it be used in the seminary. Then they should reprint the 1964/1965 English translation of the Liturgy with only those corrections that are absolutely necessary. After that they should work with all the bishops of the Ruthenian recension to create a single liturgical commission to prepare common texts of all the official service books of the Ruthenian recension. Yes, it is a lot of work but nothing worth doing is ever easy. The work done by our liturgical commission is flawed (with the missing litanies, incorrect rubrics and the use of exclusive “inclusive language”). But as I have stated repeatedly there is much good work there hiding behind the misguided attempts at revision.

John / Admin

After reading and rereading this I renew my hope and prayer for a conference. This time not just about this translation but a Pan Eastern or at least Pan Ruthenian conference to discuss issues of common concern. The first one should be of course about the liturgy. Working toward said conference should be meetings of heirarchs, priests, and represented laity to formulate areas for for prayerful deliberation at said conference. Following the Pan Eastern/Ruthenian conference would of course be commissions charged with various kinds of work including a new common translation.

The conference itself could be open to all interested parties. (No guns or knives allowed. )

CDL

I do not have time now or in the immediate future to respond to the Administrator's latest post.

I regret that it goes around and around, because he does not respond to what I say but to what he thinks I say.

The bottom line is this: the work of the Liturgy Commission will bring our Church as a whole to a greater fidelity to its Byzantine tradition. That fidelity cannot be forced, but it can be supported by the good will of the hierarchs, priests and faithful of our Church. I think most will see the reasonableness of what we are doing. Individual Orthodox have seen the reasonableness of what we are doing.

The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.

The Administrator seems convinced of this and if this argument has to go around and around and around and around and around in circles, so be it. It has become a war, and in my sixties, I know one thing, in a war, no one wins.

I wish I had the luxury to simply dismiss evidence that the Admionistrator does not like - e.g. the favorable review of the Oriental Congregation, but I have more integrity.

The Administrator has not even begun to discuss what organic developments are. The only one he mentions is the reading of the gospel of the Resurrection before Paschal Orthros, which is done only because of a liturgical devolution - the minimalization of the Paschal Vigil Liturgy.
The combination of the services is a Passaic problem, which was imported from the Cathedral in Parma, no loneger doen there nor in any other church outside of Passaic, as far as I know. I gave a "nihil obstat" to the book for the Parma Cathedral, but a "nihil obstat" does not indicate that the author agrees with the contents, only that there is nothing in the contents contrary to faith or morals.

Of course, one hopes for co-operation between all the Ruthenian Churches and the Orthodox Churches - this does not disqualify us from the pastoral care of our own people. One hopes that all churches will eventually find a way to an authentic and genuine liturgy in the tradition of the Byzantine Church, but it may well have diversity because of the different pastoral needs of the various churches, and one hopes for genuine organic development.

He scoffs at the idea of faithfulness in spirit, but there is such a thing, the 1905 books were not faithful in spirit, but our churches are now much more faithful in spirit, and the work of the Liturgy Commission is faithful in spirit.

Liturgiam Authenticam is for the Roman Church, not the Byzantine Church - and for a very good reason. The whole question is "inclusive language" is not a "Ruthenian recension" question but one of ecclesiology, theology and sociology.

The Administrator wrote: "Rediscovering and living our tradition MUST precede updating." The "updating" sir, is a part of the tradition. The Liturgy as proposed will help us to rediscover and live our tradition today.

My life and my work has been dedicated to the restoration of our tradition. I think I have as good an idea of it - I think a better idea - than do you. Your stance of being the sole supporter of the Byzantine tradition against the evil Father David is wearing thin. I am not the legislator of the Liturgy, nor are you, but the bishops are - despite your constant attempts at canonical obfuscation. You interpret statements of the See of Rome only in the sense of literal fundamentalism. Even the Ruthenian recension, which is the norm, was the vision mostly of one man - Cyril Korolevsky, which the church made its own. It remains the norm, but the norm in spirit, and in the two generations since then there have been organic developments. The Ruthenian Recension is a text, words in a book, it does not come alive until it is celebrated. The problem here is that we are stuck in textualism, and cannot see what the Ruthenian Recension is really about.

You "demonize" me as if I were the author of everything that you hate about the present scene - "Father David's Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Resurrection being promulgated in Passaic - it was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction.
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction.
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction

There is so much more I could say, but have to catch a plane.

Father David

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Cheerup!! Things are only going to get worse!!

Thanks for the encouragement.

CDL

Got to die first, boss. Then live.

Eli

I hesitate even to respond anymore, since I am so depressed about the state of Ruthenia.

Fr. David says:
Perhaps we would see the reasonableness of what the IELC is doing, if we could actually see it. Maybe, if we had a conference, we could be convinced of the reasonableness. If the work is so good, and the reasons for everything so good that they will engender assent, why not publicize everything, the current liturgy, the reasons for the changes, the letter from the Congregation, everything?

Let the truth win out, I say.

As for demandind retractions, Fr. David should retract the following claims

"As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down."

Also, he should retract the following:

"Pseudo-Athanasios said:
“Read Fr. David's review of Keleher's book, where he seems to see no role for us in the future, despite Orientale Lumen, the documents of Vatican II, and Archbishop Vsevelod and Bishop Kallistos Ware.” This is not my opinion in any way, this is what Serge Keleher said he thought was my opinion, which Pseudo-Athanasios says is my opinion because Serge Keleher said that is Fr. David’s opinion."

I beg your pardon, Fr. David, but I have a brain too, and I can come to an opinion about a text wihout getting it from Fr. Keleher. You insinuate that I am some sort of robot, merely parrotting the insidious Fr. Keleher. This is beneath you. I await an apology.

Of course, it is absurd for me to take umbrage at these statements, isn't it? It is absurd for me to stamp my feet and demand apologies. It shows a defect in my character. I should refrain from getting angry with Fr. David, and I should simply debate the issue at hand. I therefore take back my demands for apologies.

I suggest Fr. David do likewise. He is very quick to take offense, but also very quick to give offense.

Now, can I ask a question? What is the positive benefit to the faithful of mandating that the antiphons only be one verse each? I've asked many times, but perhaps my question keeps getting lost.

Eli,

You are sounding better all the time. This is precisely what Father Thomas keeps telling us. But the death is o so slow. TS Eliot understood such things and of course so did Jesus. Good reminder.

CDL

P-S,

I wonder if there is something in the water in Pittsburgh. Is it actually same in some places there?

CDL

Easier to remind than to do.

We'd better leave this channel open, even though the door seems to have slammed shut.

God's blessings.

Eli

P-S,

Another typo. I typed "is it same..." I meant "is it SANE". Is anyone sane in Pittsburgh. I suppose so. I'd like to see more examples of it though.

CDL

Our esteemed Administrator has repeatedly cited the merged Paschal service as THE primary example of how liturgical change has "driven people away", and has attributed this change to Father David. Yet, Father's own Typikon (at least for all the years I have used it) has no such merged service, and I have never seen it celebrated at the Seminary.

Given that convergence, yes, actual evidence should be cited before blaming that particular combined service on Father David. (I certainly would not want to publish what my own head cantor says about our Administrator's music and the fidelity thereof, based as it is on some mistaken premises, and hearsay. I would hate to see the same done in this case, which is being claimed as THE test case for liturgical reform.)

Father has written quite a bit; why not discuss his published opinions here, rather than the decisions of his (previous) bishop?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Administrator,

thanks for starting this thread as it is an important one.

Father David wrote:

"2) A translation can be changed only if it is incorrect? Why? Varying translation can be correct, yet one can be better, why not choose the better."

This may evoke a similar negative reaction from Father David like we saw earlier in this thread, but I fail to see how Father David can continue to post remarks like this and be taken seriously when words like 'Orthodox' are prohibited. True faith is a better translation? As I have posted before in another thread, the Ukrainians, Roman Greek Catholics and Melkites have been able to translate this this way yet we can't. And then I have to continue to read that Father David thinks we should choose the better translation but doesn't actually do this. Maybe Father David can calmy explain.

I know he's not the only one on the commission so I am anticipating the answer being that there are others on the commission and the majority went with the inferior translation in this case. If this is the case I can't help but think how sad it is that the majority of a Byzantine Catholic commission could reach such a decision.

Will priests ever be given the latitude to substitute the word 'Orthodox' for 'true faith' if the texts preclude it?

Orthodox is not allowed, feminist inclusive language is, what a world.

mc

Originally written by P-A.

Until now, I took such remarks rhetorical, and simple obstructionism; just a tactic for opponents to take some molehill and make it into an embarrasing mountain, just as in efforts to get the notes of the Clinton health care meetings, or Cheney's energy policy meetings.

But the simple answer is that it is naive to expect - without some cooperative effort to defend it, or without patiently awaiting the slow verdict of history - that truth will prevail over politics and willfulness in any scant analysis.

Your original call for a conference was, IMO, not very well thought out:
Perhaps it would be good to start with developing real expertise in Greek and Slavonic. Then we could develop criteria and norms of translation accuracy, then we could establish the degree to which the translation of 1965 sets a binding precedent to be overturned only if the accuracy is improved within some, selected measure. The we should summarize the way in which these issues were treated in all of the dozen of so other translations of the DL into English that we will look at. And perhaps also for other languages (French and German were very illuminating to me on the matter of "Holy things..."). We will certainly need to become experts in liturgical theology to guard against unintended theological errors that might be read into the text. We will have to establish some sort of reasonable person test to discern whether any given heterodox interpretation - involving for example the administrator's cat - has any genuine likelihood of being read into the text. Then we might consider the pastoral situation as it exists throughout the Archeparchy and develop an impact statement for each of the various changes proposed.

We could still probably make vespers, and if we convened after Sunday liturgy, we could no doubt have time to read, evaluate, and reconsider acceptance or rejection of your thesis.

Having said this, I will repeat what I have said before: The bishops and IELC and others indeed have their work cut out for them in disseminatng and discussing their work. Especially in the face of organized, even secret, opponents. There should be workshops for teaching, for dissemination. I suspect there will be. But somehow I get the idea that the proposed conference has a rather different, but thus far hidden, agenda.
The water there is superb.

MC wrote:
Then let me help you succeed in seeing, MC. The criterion of improved accuracy is not, nor was it ever stated to be, the sole determining factor to be used in making a translation.

Although improved accuracy should be the goal, I understand that in your world 'pastoral sensitivity' overrides all and is especially helpful to make sure that restorations either don't happen or take forever and a day. Then you can always say that you're in favor of restorations but don't want to be insensitive so let's not do them.

Back to the Orthodox discussion, pastoral sensitivy in this example boils down to some of our people holding grudges for 70 years while other Greek Catholics have gotten over it and moved on.

mc

Dear DJS,

This is the thinking that has me depressed. Clericalism, I say!

Read again what you wrote, and see what it says about the laity:

If only we were all smart enough! Perhaps, as you say, my original post wasn't well thought out, but my position on this is that some sort of consultation or even openness before promulgation would do much to aid the reception of the new translation, and might even help the new translation, since I understand it is still being revised.

Clericalism? What was said in the quote about clergy or laity?

I don't think for a minute that the expertise and the time required to do what you suggested requires Holy Orders. (The liturgy and music commision does inclue laity). But it does so happen that if one wants expertise in the areas noted, then a good place to start looking is our clergy. And it does happen that expertise and time are required.

I apologize if I made you feel like an idiot. The fact is, you know that I do expect you to understand.

And I would like to understand this: just what do you want to happen at this conference, and what are your expectations about its impact. In particular, given the short time frame, what can be accomplished?

Dear djs,

I apologize if I misread you. I took the quote to be ironic, pointing out all the qualifications that the attendees at the conference would lack.

I edited my post, by the way, removing the bits about offense. Nobody cares whether I take offense, and I shouldn't care either. The issue is the liturgy and the good of the Church.

I have no world, MC.
No one asked me; no one tried me.
And this idea is not original to me; it comes from the very same documents that the administrator likes to quote.
For some perrhaps, but for most it's probably more subtle; a terrible distraction just when you are trying to lay aside all earthly cares.
That is great for them; I regret that we are perhaps a little slower.

That would really depend on who came. And what the scope of the conference was. Workshops to learn about what ideas informed the work of the IELC and the decision made and alternative rejected by the bishops seems feasible. A decision making body that will give a up/down decision, probably not, IMO.

I am certain that that is not true.

Dear djs,

On the scope of the conference, I think what you wrote

would be good. I certainly don't think it would be a decision-making body. However, I think my vision is that it would be more than merely informative, but not quite "decisionative." Perhaps it would be best described as advisory or consultative. The bishops could use such a conference or conferences as ways to get a better picture of what is going on, of what the concerns are, and of what changes may be hidden time bombs.

If it were one conference, the issues would have to be limited, probably to the four or five that have generated the most angst.

A note about the tone of such a conference: I know the bishops are the ones with the responsibility and the grace of episcopal ordination. They will bind and loose, and I will obey. But it might be a good pastoral policy to go into such a conference with the possibility that some things might be adjusted. Even if none of them are, it would soften hearts. "Bishop _____ didn't do what I hoped he would do, but at least he listened! God grant him many years!"

Pseudo-Athanasius has asked "What is the positive benefit to the faithful of mandating that the antiphons only be one verse each?" He remarks that he has asked this question several times, but it must be getting lost.

He has indeed asked this question several times; I've not responded to it previously since I advocate and practice no such thing and I naively thought that those who do advocate and practice such drastic reductionism should defend their own position. But Pseudo-Athanasius is at least entitled to an answer, so I'll try, although I am not at my best trying to explain the liturgical aberrations of others.

Reducing the Antiphons to almost nothing can be found in some Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA, so those who wish to do the same among the Greek-Catholics can point to Orthodox who do it. To this I would respond that it is a poor sort of ecumenism which consists of ratifying each other's abuses.

The practice, regardless of who is doing it, reflects a fixation on time (or to quote the stated policy of two Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA forty years ago "The Mass should begin at 11 and end at 12, including a 5-minute sermon").

This whole attituded is of no benefit to the faithful whatever - it is harmful to the faithful. First, it deprives the faithful of the opportunity to learn the Scriptural texts (the Psalms and the Beatitudes) of the Antiphons. Equally (or worse) it teaches the faithful that we can reduce our divine worship to sixty minutes or less once a week (at most) and consider ourselves to have given God what is due him, and nourished our own souls with all that is necessary. The result might well be called "spiritual anorexia".

Fr. Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

I learn something every time you post.

"The practice, regardless of who is doing it, reflects a fixation on time (or to quote the stated policy of two Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA forty years ago "The Mass should begin at 11 and end at 12, including a 5-minute sermon")."

I do wish some of the Orthodox polemicists would stop lecturing us on how perfectly and consistently they follow Orthodoxy and, unlike the "Uniates" who deviate from it on the basis of Roman domination or secular pressure. The next time I'm confronted by an idealistic Orthodox polemicist I shall "gently" pull out this quote. Do you have a source?

CDL

The source, I regret to say, is the late thrice-blessed Metropolitan Antony (Bashir). Metropolitan Antony accomplished much good, but he was far too enthralled by the "practicality" of America.

Fr. Serge

This thread is wandering, like any good conversation.

Fr. Serge and Dan/Carson/whatever your first name is: I stopped by to visit a local Greek Orthodox church here in Chicago, and started talking to one of the parish secretaries. She bragged about the liturgies and how long they were, too long for Roman Catholics. "How long are they?" I asked. "Oh, they're long. At least forty-five minutes!"

Pseudo-Athanasius,

That secretary was WAY off! :rolleyes:

Infact, my husband and I have a standing joke. We married young, and at the time, he was much more liturgically versed and immersed in Orthodoxy than I was.

So, when I would ask how long a particular service was, he would, depending on the service, respond "short". I then came to realize that 'short' NEVER, EVER meant under an hour in ANY Greek Orthodox service ANYWHERE! So, twenty-five years later, whenever he says let's go to such and such service, it will be a short one, I just laugh and say 'sure'.

(Much to my dismay actually, as I happen to like a good, short, Latin Mass once in a while to reinvigorate my day spiritually without tiring me physically).

In Christ,
Alice

I have a couple of thoughts that I thought I might share.

One, it seems a little hard for me to believe there is a 45 minute liturgy being performed at a GOA parish. The reason I say that is it seems like to me the priest would have to skip things, chant incredibly quickly and have almost no communicants in order to get through the whole thing. It is possible that’s the case, it just seems unlikely to me. Every Greek Orthodox parish I have ever been to has had a liturgy that averages somewhere between and hour and 45 minutes and two hours. In my experience a one hour service of Orthros preceding the liturgy is also the norm. I would think Alice, Zenovia or Fr. Anthony would probably know for sure though whether or not this does occur. [looks like she beat me!]

The quote about Metropolitan Anthony does not surprise me. It was a different era, just like the episcopate of Bishop Elko was a different one for the BCC. I don’t see how dredging up either could be a basis to prove anything to one side or the other. I will say, and this again is from experience, that you will find two distinct atmospheres in Antiochian parishes representing both the old order and the new.

Andrew

Dear Rilian,

I find it hard to believe, as well. I think maybe she doesn't have a watch.

Dear Alice,

When I was a boy, our pastor in the Roman church could get through a mass in 18 minutes, without omitting anything. I know, because my brother and I timed it with our fancy digital watches, back in the 80's when digital watches were cool.

Pseudo-Athanasius,

"What is the positive benefit to the faithful of mandating that the antiphons only be one verse each?"

There is no mandate that only one verse be taken, they simply aren't putting all the verses in the pew book.

As has been stated before, the cantor's book will have the extra verses and I am completely confident that any parish that takes all the antiphon verses will continue to do so. It is annoying that the extra verses will have to be on photocopied sheets and handed out rather than in the book but that is hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

The same goes for the Little Litanies or the Litany of Supplication after the Great Entrance.

But the pew book simply reflects the customary practice of the about 98% of the Metropolia. For better or worse one verse has been custom for about 40 years now.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Pittsburgh is full of some of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. Down to earth, way down even on top of the hills, and not afraid to work hard and dirty, tough hides, hard heads, mushy hearts but not soft.

Very very sane. If they aren't connected to a reality they like, they will make a better reality up and live that and make everybody else live it too so that we're all on the same page, so to speak!! It is one of my favorite people-cities. I could live there but I'd carry a mule-stick!



Eli

This is exceptionally disappointing to hear. I can no longer imagine a Sunday parish liturgical commitment that did not waste 2.5 hours of my life every Sunday and then social time too. Thankfully I don't really need to imagine it, but as Alice says, there are times when the aridity of the Novus Ordo is a blessing as the desert comes after the mountain top.

I do not believe either one of those experiences should be measured on a time piece. Of course I am also in favor of going back to much more severe fasting periods for all Catholics who have slipped into the lethargy of abundance.

It is astonishing how unpopular one can become in one brief life time just by saying a few words.

I hope and pray that Father David comes back to Pittsburgh safe and sound and opens the "door" gently that he slammed in our faces earlier in this thread, and bothers to ask rather than tell. That would be a God-send, I think. All that shrilling and foot-stomping has done no good for anyone.

Eli

Was there ever another time period other than the last 40 years when this has been so?

Monomakh

John,

"The issue of language in the Greek and Russian Churches is not one where they refuse to use the vernacular. These Churches consider “Liturgical Greek” and Church Slavonic to be vernacular languages. I do not know either fluently but those who do tell me that a reasonable comparison to modern speakers is the English of the King James Bible times two for Church Slavonic (twice as antiquated) and times three for Liturgical Greek. A friend from Russia assures me that the people who fill the Churches there can understand the Divine Services. My maternal grandmother spoke “Po-Nashemu”, Russian, Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian and English. My mother remembers her mom telling her that she understood the texts of the liturgy, but just not every word. [Perhaps Chaucer would be a better comparison here than the King James Version of the Bible?]

We can also consider the continued use of the King James Version of the Bible by many Protestants as almost the equivalent of the use of Elizabethan English by some Byzantine Churches. The KJV and the Elizabethan style of English are not as antiquated as Church Slavonic or Liturgical Greek but I think the comparison is not an unfair one."

The following is from the first sentence of the Prologue from The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer:

"Whan that Aprill with his shoures sote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
And bathed euery veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in euery holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe course yronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the niht with open ye—
So priketh hem Nature in hir corages—
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, couthe in sondry londes;
And specially, from euery shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende,
The holy blissful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke."

I would say your estimation that Chaucer's Middle English is closer is correct, but would deny that Middle English along with Old Slavonic or Koine Greek can be considered venacular for speakers of modern English, Rusyn or Greek.

Certainly, certain words are recognizable, even phrases but on whole it is hadly venacular. It is also worth noting that both modern Greek and Russian are being asked for by clergy and faithful alike, especially those interested in reaching and keeping the youth, in both the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. David is not the entire liturgical commission, and he is not a bishop. He is a scholar who is doing a job that has been assigned to him, and he is doing it conscientiously. He has said that he does not personally agree with every one of the choices made by the liturgical commission. It is one thing to disagree with him, but it is another to attack him personally, to accuse him of betraying the Church, and to blame him for decisions that are not his. Fr. David does not deserve the abuse that he has been taking on this forum. If I were in his position, I'm not sure I could refrain from some foot-stomping and door-slamming.

FD Lance, do you know (does anyone know?) whether the festal antiphons (apart from Pascha) will be in either of the books you mention? Do you know whether or not the full psalms will be in the Cantor's book or just the widely-accepted several-verse version? What is the rationale for that deprivation? Ditto for the rest of the psalmody - as Joe Thur liked to note - that has fallen out of use.

DJS,

To my knowledge the Festive aniphons will be in the pew books, one verse. The cantor's book will have the several verses that the blue book has.

Why? Because it has become the accepted custom I suppose.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father David is a priest first, and a sensitive wordsmith much much lower down the line of his being and accomplishments.

As I said before and can repeat as often as you like, this Church needs a strengthening leadership, not one that threatens, pushes, shoves, shrills and slams, in order for us to become a truly great Church, and perhaps even if we are to survive.

Eli

Seems as though I am good for an idiot's question at least once a day lately.

Is there any chance that the "missing" parts could be added to the pew books prior to printing? Or is all that finished and ready to ship or has shipped?

Eli

Eli,

I don't know the answer to that one.

Fr. Deacon Lance

For goodness sake--I am so tired of this and cannot take much more...IF your parish sings all three verses on Sundays and Feasts that have proper antiphons, then create inserts with the additional verses and paste them into the inside front cover of the new books! NO ONE is going to report you to the liturgical police and have your priest, cantor/choir, or congregation thrown into the undercroft jail behind the furnace room in your respective cathedral because you sing 2 more verses of 3 psalms!

Forgive me for ranting, but we are adults. This is not 1890 Wilkes-Barre, or 1938 Bridgeport. Just sing the antiphons if you already do.

Feeling much better now...

John K.

Since questions are being asked about what is in the new pew book, does anyone know if posture directives, i.e. STAND, SIT, KNEEL, will be included in the new book and what they are?

I ask because a large portion of my parish has returned to standing for nearly the entire Sunday Liturgy and would hate to see that disappear.

Could you find out from someone who does?

Eli

We still kneel, even the servers kneel (with the latter there is no consistancy in the eparchy as to even where they stand). We kneel even during the no kneeling times.

Hopefully the prompts will go.

Even the best scholars can sometimes fail to resist provocation; that doesn't necessarily make them bad scholars. :rolleyes:

But I think the people are not "getting" Fr. David's use of repetition. Doesn't it just refer to the administrator's rationale for setting out, immune from all discussion and correction over the years, to repeat his mantra, once again.

... If you repeat it often enough ...

Attempting to defend an indefensible trantrum has to be tough.


~Isaac

It is another thing again, to mistake every disagreement for a personal attack.

Nick

Jeff,

I’m confused here because I received my copy of this service from Father David himself back around 1990. He presented it to me back then as the way of the future. I find it odd that he now claims no involvement except as “censor deputatus”.

BTW, have Holy Week services ever been celebrated at the seminary? I thought the seminarians all went to parishes for Holy Week?

I don’t see criticism as a provocation or personal attack. In every mailing I have done over the past 25 years I have asked for criticism and comments. I regularly receive feedback from priests, cantors and others who ask for my materials. I find that the criticism and suggestions have made my work better.

That is precisely what we are doing!

There is a traditional children's rhyme - a piece of authentic Americana, in fact - which has come to my mind a couple of times recently:

"I don't want to play in your yard.
You can't play here any more!
You'll be sorry when you see me
Swinging on our cellar door.

You can't holler down our rain barrel.
You can't climb our apple tree!
I don't want to play in your yard
If you won't be good to me."


It even has music. But who or what could have called this rhyme repeatedly to my mind in the past few days, I wonder?

Fr Serge

Being on the road, I don't know how often I'll be able to check in. I thank Michael Robusto for his remarks. He was my parishioner in Holy Ghost when I was administrator there from 1992-1995. It's true there was some foot-stomping, but the idea that all the work of the IELC or even anything that has been done anywhere by anyone that the Administrator doesn't like seems to be blamed on me, and no matter what I say, he persists in that accusation. That is precisely the reason I repeated it, it should last for about ten posts, before I have to renew my denial. I'm not the kind of person that wants to close doors, but on this forum I have been forced into a defensive posture. Some misconceptions have to be cleared before we can have positive discussion. I suspect - though I am not denying the sincerity of the Administrator in his opposition to the work of the IELC - that the tactic is to set up a "straw man" that is easy to knock down, and if he can damage my credibility, then it will make the whole liturgical project lose credibility. That is why I called it a "war", because "All is fair in love or war." Such tactics will work, of course, if the reader is also opposed to the issue, but is certainly trying to one's patience to be constantly misrepresented and repeatedly attacked. It is also the reason, as I have told others in private messages, that this Forum is not a place where this liturgical work can get a fair hearing. On reflection, it does have one value, I can see which issues will be brought up when we begin our catechesis, for the bishops never intended that this be presented without catechesis and explanation.
What is it that we are trying to accomplish? Our Lord said at the Mystical Supper, "Do this in memory of me." The memory comes particularly in the presbyteral (or episcopal as Fr. Serge likes to say) office, the prayers which recount the loving events of our Lord's gift from creation to the second coming, and which form the basis for our liturgical anamnesis (commemoration). For historical reasons, this presbyteral office has become inaudible for the people - yes, for many centuries - though certainly it was the original foundation of the Liturgy, to which the deacon and the people added there "con-celebration" as St. John Chrysostom once so eloquently pointed out. Of everything that the IELC has done, this is the most important and courageous. I would rank it with the courage we had in the 50's to go vernacular, despite the reluctance of the universal Church and strident internal opposition - which caused many to leave our Church at that time. I've lived through both, and I see similarities. The other "casus belli" is inclusive language. Professor Michael Thompson pointed out in another thread that this was added on the recommendation by Rome. They did not demand it, they left our bishops free on this point, but it was the decision made then to introduce some horizontal inclusive language. The Administrator, again seeking someone to focus his remarks on, speculated that the Oriental Congregation review - which otherwise he refuse to admit the existence of, since he has not seen it - was written by Father Taft, one of the people he seems to dislike. One irony - among others - is that the principle that he so frequently espouses, that we cannot make any changes in the Liturgy until we have experienced the Ruthenian Recension for a number of years (generations?) was actually the principle espoused by Father Taft beginning in the 70's. The problem is that the Administrator will aceept only textual fundamentalism, whereas Father Taft would see a promulgation such as that by Bishop Emil in 1970, or our later promulgations or the new translation as fulfilling the principle in spirit. And there has been subsequent organic development, such as our perception of the importance of the presbyteral office. I see the inclusive language question as more sociological than theological, since as Christians, we obviously believe that Christ has come to save all people, women as well as men, and all races and ethnicities, Jew as well as Greek.
The question of the antiphons has to be dealt with serarately. Antiphons are not found in the "Ruthenian Recension" since they are variable elements that are part of the people's office. Please remember that the office of three verses is actually an abbreviation of the whole psalm, which was song when the antihpons were still processional hymns.
I don't know when I'll be able to respond again, and will be attending the foundational meeting of the Society of Eastern Liturgists next week in Eichstatt, Germany.
Best wishes to all in Christ,

Father David

While writing my long reply, the Administrator claimed that in 1900 or thereabouts, I made the claim that the combination was the "wave of the future." Since at that time, 16 years ago, when this issue was not yet so controversial, I may have made some positive statements about the book - but I have never espoused the particular combination. It's easy to misunderstand statements. My role as censor of books is simply to judge that in a book there is nothing against faith or morals, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with the contents. I have never celebrated that combination in any parish I've been in. I would - and have done - the Paschal Vigil in the evening. Then later the Paschal Orthros, either at a separate time in the night or Sunday morning, and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, either with or separate from the Paschal Orthros. I have discovered, in a private message, that there is at least one other parish in the Parma Eparchy that does that combination, but I am unaware of others, but would be glad to hear of any data in this regard,

Father David

As Nicholas previously posted:
"Like many of us, the Administrator thinks that nothing other than an accurate, careful, complete translation of those books will do. (without alteration to the rubrics, inclusive language, reorganization or any other hint at revision)."

That would get a fair hearing. Of course by fair hearing you mean no one challenge or disagree.


To create something that breaks from our Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Romanian Greek Catholic bretheren and has feminized inclusive language is the most important and courageous? Wow!?


So is it to make sure that we stay in the 45 - 55 minute timeframe for a liturgy that we are abbreviating the abbrevation?

Why not make three or more available in the published book, since many are convinced here that for the 40 years most parishes have only taken one, then most will probably only take one and you'll be happy. Was there ever another time when besides the last 40 years that only one verse was taken?

Will the 'Bless the Lord all my soul...' be available and used as well?


Monomakh

Dear Father David,

Remember your theology. You cannot be forced into any kind of bad or sinful behavior. Even at gunpoint, you have a choice. Ask the nearest martyr. We all make that choice to yield to our emotions or not. This is the heart of what we believe. Kenosis. Empty ourselves to be filled with the Light.

Don't worry about what John/Administrator says that might press you to upset. Focus on the substance and remember that there are those of us out here who would like to see all the posturing and bickering stop and the dialogue begin.

Examine the work. Examine yourself. Be willing to back away from a favored position and allow light and air in. You might wind up with something better, and something that you may have wanted in the first place.

Don't think we are out here pulling faces at you. We are not. I am not. I am interested in both sides of a dialogue here. I am deeply concerned that the liturgy succumbs to weak theology.

I have preferences just like the rest, but I won't slam a door over them.

Well, not more than once

God bless you Father. Please don't give up on us. We haven't given up on you.

Eli

Eli,

I quite agree with you. Well said.

CDL

Well-spoken. And, of course, important not just for Fr. David, but vitally important for us all.

Absolutely! Daily!

or if one is Eli, then moment by moment! :p

Eli

Eli,

What you post here is VERY true - in nearly every aspect of life. In my own career while consulting with leaders at all levels domestically and internationally, I encounter many leaders who have forgotten the power of reconciling apparent opposites and learning through encountering challenge and differences of opinion. Sometimes it is a matter of compressed time frames, sometimes it is a driving personal or corporate agenda, sometimes it is a lack of openness to learn from others or to face personal mistakes, sometimes it is a fear of the natural ambiguity that results from a possible change in direction. I too find myself moving along with projects and will forget to involve people, or will close myself off to opinions because I don't feel I have the capacity to respond to what is being recommended.

I can say, having worked on 3 continents now, that this problem is universal - it is part of our human nature. I can also say that I have personally learned more through dialog with individuals with whom I differed than from staying in my comfortable shell.

With that said, I did not intend to diagnose anything to do with Father David. Mine was only a personal observation based on what you shared.

God bless,

Gordo

Father David previously posted:"The bottom line is this: the work of the Liturgy Commission will bring our Church as a whole to a greater fidelity to its Byzantine tradition. That fidelity cannot be forced, but it can be supported by the good will of the hierarchs, priests and faithful of our Church. I think most will see the reasonableness of what we are doing. Individual Orthodox have seen the reasonableness of what we are doing".

Slavipodvizhnik reminded us of this quote from this thread in the 'Coming to a Location Near You?" thread.

How officially chopping up and feminizing the Divine Liturgy brings our Church as a whole to a greater fidelity to its Byzantine Tradition is beyond me. Maybe Father David could explain in more detail this point as well as how one verse antiphons are traditional.

Wouldn't greater fidelity to our Tradition involve not worrying if we are in and out of church in under 50 minutes?

Father David, do you agree or disagree that there's only so much water you can add to grape juice before it stops tasting like grape juice and starts to taste more like water?

How much more can we water down our tradtions and liturgy?

I have a feeling that a response would claim 'organic growth'. More than a generation have been deprived of many of their orthodox traditions and somehow because they have never been properly informed is organic?

Monomakh

Monomakh,

I think that you know this, but don't hold your breath for a reply from Father David or anyone else.

Clearly the info that I heard was true that the text linked to on the other thread was used at a recent liturgy at the Cantor Institute. Now it appears that some kind of recording was made at this recent liturgy. Who knows what else may come to light.

The hubris that exists inside the walls in Pittsburgh won't allow them to have a conversation with anyone other than themselves. It's pretty obvious that they aren't going to descend from Mt. Olympus and let us know what is going on or why a revision is needed in the liturgy.

Only prayer and a miracle can bring down the curtain on the battering ram of revisionism.

mc

Taking a look into the past and having recently attended an RDL (ouch) it still floors me how Father David has come on this board in the past and written about how choosing the 'better' translation should be done, yet the RDL is replete with examples of where this opportunity was blown.

It has been refreshing and invigorating to attend a Julian calendar church where the liturgy lasts longer than 50 minutes. All the things that the progressive ones here have frowned on (Julian Calendar, non English liturgy, 2+ hour liturgies, Vespers, etc.) are done where I now attend and this Easter Sunday will have 800+ most likely with 100-200 children in attendance. Anyone in the Cleveland area who would like to attend a Julian calendar Easter liturgy at a Catholic church will have the opportunity this Sunday morning at Pokrova in Parma, OH.

Monomakh

To the point that one may change the translation in favor of a better translation:

In some cases this can and should be done for weighty reasons (the use of the word "Orthodox" is an obvious case in point), but it is not so in every case. One must also take into consideration that people become accustomed to translations, learn to sing them, and so on, with the result that changing translations capriciously can have unfortunate pastoral results, even though some of the change is academically defensible.

Fr. Serge

The Julian Calendar is not a pertinent issue regarding the RDL. The calendar issue addresses when feasts are celebrated not how they are celebrated. If there is a correlation it does not arise from anything intrinsic in the two calendars.