I propose that we convene a conference to discuss the proposed liturgy of the Byzantine Church. What has been developed in secret and without consultation needs to be examined in public and with consultation. Let's get together, read over the new translation, since it is now public thanks to Fr. Serge, and make our thoughts known.

I envision that we go through the liturgy point by point, perhaps over a Friday and a Saturday, and compare the Greek with our old translation, our new translation, and the various ways our Orthodox brethren have chosen to translate each passage. Then we can discuss whether our new translation is an improvement or whether it should be rejected.

I would love to fly Fr. Serge and Fr. David out for the meeting, so we can have this discussion together, face to face. The discussions would be moderated and recorded for distribution via CD, DVD, and internet.

It would be ideal if representatives of our hierarchy such as Fr. David attend, but we must meet even if they don't attend.

I think mid-August would be best. August 6 is the one-year anniversary of our Whiting meeting, but I will be in California. Perhaps the following weekend?

I know it is soon, but we must act soon before the liturgy is promulgated, which may happen as soon as September.

What do you think? Who's with me?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

What a profound idea. It could be the one event that would begin a revival for our moribund Church. Let it be so. A Sobor over the liturgy. How much more perfect can it get?

CDL

PLEASE!
It is not a Byzantine Liturgy - it is the Pittsburgh Archeparchy of the "Ruthenian" Catholic Church's version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
The question that I've asked several times here on the Forum has never been answered: why have the hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Archeparchy gone off on their own as if they "own" the Liturgy? Instead of working towards unity, they distance themselves further from their Ukrainian, Russian, Melkite, Belorusyn Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters who celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom so beautifully. How sad!

I think that it would be terrific if there were a workshop held by the all of the members of IELC in which they would they discuss the decisions that they made and the various ideas on authentic tradition, organic growth, and pastoral sensitivity that informed each decision.

I think that such a workshop could also include a discussion of possible alternatives, but only if there were children of traditional age present.

I would propose that the best venue for such a workshop is the Uniontown pilgrimage.

Pavloosh:

Fr. David has spoken to this point. The bottom line: the Hierarchs of a sui juris church ultimately must make a judgment - or shoot an arrow, using Dan's metaphor - about what is proifitable unto the salvation of the souls in the Particular church for which they are responsible before God.

BTW have you ever loooked at the GOA's English text?

If Father David has said what djs has attributed to him, then Father David is mistaken. The Instruction from the Holy See clearly encourages the various Churches using the Byzantine Liturgy to cooperate - and there is no reason at all why this cooperation should not begin with an initiative such as is proposed here.

A workship with all the members of the IELC would be nice - but we have no way of ensuring that they would turn up for it, particularly since we don't even know for sure who they are.

Uniontown is a bit late if promulgation in September is mooted about. Early August sounds better to my untrained ear. A weekend is probably essential, since it's obviously too late for most of those interested to re-schedule their vacation this summer.

Location: I hate to have to say this, but we will be much better off if we are not on Ruthenian property - the sort of pressure that would invite would be, at the very least, a great nuisance. In principle, it would be well to do this in some sort of Church setting, with a good chapel available. Would the Ukrainian seminary in Stamford, the Melkite seminary in Methuen or perhaps the Ukrainian seminary in Ottawa be open to us? Perhaps even the Greek seminary in Brookline; they have been known to host conferences (but can we have the use of a chapel there?).

What about Ligonier? The place is lovely, and we would be able to use the chapel.

Any other suggestions for the location?

Agenda: if we are going to do this, we'd better get busy.

I'll have to have a new paper bag made for the occasion!

Incognitus

The analogy holds if 1. The arrow hasn't been shot at the sheep; and 2. The shooter has built up trust in the first place. Shrinkage by 2/3 does not inspire confidence. It's just the way things are. I think the people will quickly fall in line if the shepherds reestablish trust.

CDL

Incognitus,

I'm not familiar with all of the places you mention but most seem to be on the East Coast. Do you have any suggestions for the fly over zone?

CDL

How about a monastery?

Sorry. Fr. David has spoken to this point, but the bottom line comment is my own.

The Instructions exhort cooperation, but in no way do can they be taken to represent an abrogation of canon law and/or sui juris status. The idea the text of our liturgy should be decided not among our very people but in a Ukrainian seminary? Now I know from posts on the forum that there Ukrainians who want to take over the church of Uzhhorod, and Prague, but this foray is unprecendented. Achhhhhhhhh. Maybe that is what is meant by an attack on the Carpatho-Rusyn recension!

Ahhh. That's better. Back in our stara krajina. And so close to home.

djs - I believe that the idea of a Ukrainian locus was in an attempt to have any suggested conference on neutral ground

1. Tell me the process for discernment that is being applied here.
2. From your own posts I know that you know better about these numbers than is suggested by your recent posts here and at BEMA.

Where is this mistrust coming from? Strike at the shepherd and the flocks will be scattered!

My dear OLOS,
I hope you didn't mind my injecting few . Even so, what is this idea of neutral ground? Is the idea of the meeting to present this work to the people of our Particular church. If so, then let's have it in OH, PA or NJ to maximize participation! Up in New England? Yoy.

Gentlepeople,

I think we need to pick a conference center or a hotel. If we meet in any sort of church or monastery, it will cause friction and heat for many clergy. Let's find a meeting place in a metropolitan area, and stay away from churches. We wouldn't want any of our beloved clergy to be disciplined for what we do.

I like flyover country, since it is where I live, but I will travel anywhere. Perhaps, though, to protect our clergy, we should meet in a metro area without a Byzantine (Ruthenian) church. Perhaps Milwaukee or St. Louis? Both are easy to get to, and have no parish.

Let's also try to keep this thread on topic, and not get personal. Liturgy discussions are more apt to inspire fistfights than discussions of one's mother's sexual history. Let us speak in a spirit of charity.

Oh indeed not

How about Disneyland - the Florida one - nice and warm and Incognitus's paper bag [ we will have to design a special for this occasion ] would not go unnoticed there

By Ligonier, I think incognitus meant at the Antiochian Village Conference Center near Ligonier. That would be a good site.

Just to clarify, DisneyLAND is in Anaheim, California, Disney WORLD is in Florida. No self respecting theme park enthusiast ( )would ever call the Metropolis of Disney in Florida Disneyland. For theme park purists there will only ever be one Disneyland.

One who was present at Disneyland's 50th Birthday celebration.

OH dear - I seem to have put my little size 5 right in it

Mea Culpa Mea Culpa - mea Maxima Culpa

Though I have to say that if the adverts we get over here are anything to go by - with deference you can keep it

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think that the conference should be hosted in a venue where it is open and accesible to as many people as possible.

We had a great deal of success with this in our August 6, BEMA evangelization visioning conference in Whiting, Indiana. One of the reasons for the success of the Aug. 6 event was the fact that we had a definite vision and definite ground rules which were STRICTLY adhered to. The vision was about giving postive input ONLY.

I think we can do something similiar with this Liturgy translation conference. The conference would have very strict perameters and clear a sense of purpose. The point would be to have the different perspectives and explanations presented. This would not be duplicating the explanation seminars that the Metropolia already has planned as a preparation for the implementaion of the new translation.
The purpose of the conference would be to provide a venue that is more adequate than internet for the obviously voluminous discussion that this issue provokes. I suspect this discussion is only going to increase in size and intensity. Aside from anything else I am finding these discussions very educational and I think many others could profit from these presentations as well.

On another note, we pastors will be on the front lines of the implementation and fallout thereof of the new translation. We also stand to possibly loose parishish membership over it. At the very least we may have to deal with the unrest, emotion confusion, resentment or even joy and gratitude, in fact the entire spectrum of reaction that ensues from any type of change let alone a new translation. Therefore,I think the more opportunity for presentation and discussion the better. I think it could be helpful for pastors.

It would be wonderful to have hierarchs present. Bishop John was present at our Aug. 6 visioning conference and made a valuable contribution both in the way that he allowed things to be freely presented and in what he personally said at the conference. The conference being proposed here would likewise allow for the free expression of ideas and information. My vote would be to host the conference in Chicago. I would be willing to join others in assisting our esteemed presenters with travel expenses.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.

djs,

The figures have been publish on this forum within the last few days. I've seen them before. I understand that people die and move but I don't understand the lack of a coherent vision and call to action unless our destiny is to collapse and cease to exist.

My purpose in calling upon the bishops to lead us is not to strike against them but to challenge them to call upon us to become the Church we ought to be. If I have stricken against the bishops I apologize to them, to the Church, and to God. In fact if my plea to them to lead us is a strike against them I withdraw everything I've said and will repent of all I've done in the past seven years.

CDL

IF those who are mandating the current draft of the liturgy do not call this meeting or council for the expressed purpose of opening the draft to further change, then what would be the point of convening anywhere in the world?

What is the purpose of this sort of informal meeting? What could happen there that is not happening right here and with more people involved and less expense?

Eli

Fair enough, Dan. And I don't want to minimize the gravity of the fact that even in the more recent years, with a consistent enumeration scheme, the numbers continue to decline slowly. If we are to reverse that trend we do need just precisely that vision you are talking about. And which, I think, Bishop John shares.

Pavloosh, it is sad. This whole process has been introverted, in spite of what we are exhorted to do in the Instruction from Rome regarding collaboration. We seem to ignore the experience of the Latins in the recent rounds of proposed changes to their Missal. We also are seemingly ignoring the example of other churches of our rescension. The 1988 UGCC Liturgikon, for example, returned to a more faithful adherence of the 1941 Ordo. The proposed but yet unseen Revised Liturgy seems rather an intended regression from the 1941 Ordo.

Eli, that is a good point. Those who will be directing the implementation of the changes need, no must to be involved and to hear what is being discussed - but unfortunately I doubt you will get all of the hierarchs in one place like that. And really at this point that is what it will take.

There really should be face to face, eye to eye contact with those not only responsible for the changes, but those who will be directing the implementation of the changes. They should be seen and be heard as to why we are doing this, face to face.

We haven't seen a text (but have heard there are already changes to the changes), we haven't seen or heard officially the reasons for a change to the text (Ordo and Liturgikon), we haven't heard compelling reasons why we should ditch what we were supposed to implement in the first place, why we should depart from the course charted for us in the 1941 Ordo which we have yet to follow. All of which are fair questions.

In the big picture, we can certainly listen to two or more perspectives on proposed changes to our lex orandi but if it is already on the fast track for implementation, post facto, one has to consider the efficacy of such a meeting. "As soon as September" and we haven't heard a word nor seen a page. Including clergy.

I do agree that Karl is right about neutral location, conference center, etc.

That loss is perhaps more probable to certain than just "possibly", and just as likely it will include more than just parish membership. Our parishes are shrinking in most cases, the clergy shortage acute. Another massive hemorrhage that will likely accompany such a profound change would not be timely, or likely beneficial to our Church.
FDD

Why have such a meeting? To give the bishops the input that they needed, but chose not to seek. To help them, in love, to do the right thing. So that if we find that we can no longer in good faith worship with the church of the metropolia of Pittsburgh, we will have no regrets, since we will have done all that we could have done.

I'm not so sure that promulgation is a done deal. And if it is a done deal, despite an organized and loyal opposition to it, we will know how they think of us. Then all will be clear, and the death knell for our church will sound.

I don't know if I share your optimism of "I'm not so sure that promulgation is a done deal" but the remainder of your plea is certainly worth considering and a decent justification of such an endeavor. Let us all implore the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete for guidance in this watershed time.
FDD

Question....

Would any of you think I'm an old crackpot for wishing we could have a Divine Liturgy using Elizabethan language?

Be kinda neat to me to be able to chant "And with THY spirit"...haven't ever said that since I was a kid in the Episcopal Church

Who can tell me what - if any - Orthodox jurisdictions use such language in their English liturgies?

God bless you all,

Sam

Is that available on-line anywhere, FDD? What do you mean, btw, by " returned to a more faithful adherence of the 1941 Ordo"?

Correction, actually that was 1987. Regarding my comment regarding the Ordo, first of all there were other various "provisional" English versions floating around the UGCC which codified certain abbreviations without giving the option of fuller celebration.

For example, in the 1987 version all three Antiphons or the Psalms of Typika and Beatitudes are contained, all of the litanies are contained, including the Litany of the Catechumens and those during the Prayers of the Faithful, and the rubrics of the opening and closing of the Holy Doors are contained. Even the customary location of the chanting of Psalm 33 is indicated along with the distribution of antidoron if it wished to be taken.

Some, like the Litany of the Catechumens, are included in boxes which the Synod indicated that may be optional as a matter of pastoral prudence but it certainly did not legislate specific abbreviations as demanded practice, and always gives the option for the fuller celebration if desired.

Secondly, since I haven't seen the New Liturgy, but can at this point only go off of Archimandrite Serge's excellent analysis of the text (which I certainly trust) the UGCC 1987 would seem most definitely more faithful to the letter and spirit of the 1941 Ordo than what appears to be proposed.

Regarding availability - I don't know of it on-line but it is certainly available from Basilian Press in Toronto, Icon and Book Service (and likely other sources like St. Josaphat's in Parma as well).
FDD

Thanks, FDD. I was wondering from your phrasing whether there were departures from 1941 (tranlsated) or not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, we pastors will be on the front lines of the implementation and fallout thereof of the new translation. We also stand to possibly loose parish membership over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the loss of population will largely come from those folks who have joined our churches with young children. The people who support our Church the most. The folks that read the Church Fathers, pray and fast. In short those who really try to have a vital domestic church. Yes, the ones who really want to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome will leave. You know, those who actually go to Saturday Vespers and read Eastern Christian books. Most parishes have at least a few of these types. The loss is the future of our church. And when they 'dox the Metropolia will cease to be a reality.

I am aware of a few parishes who have submitted numbers for ordering the new books. If the books are indeedin production then the money is spent whether the bill is paid or not.

If that is the case then the final cost to the Church will be much higher than the net 30.

Eli

Eli,

I've been thinking about your question. If enough people love the Church and take the issues seriously it may not matter if the bishops show up or not. Oh, I grant you, it would have been best if the bishops had called a sobor before the process ever began. But they did not do that. Then we go to the second best. The second best for them would be that they call this sobor themselves and arrange to have Father Kelleher and the entire translating committee at the the meeting and invite everyone clergy and faithful to participate. The third best for the bishops and I think for the Church would be for them to employ the "back door" method of leadership. It has its drawbacks but at least it is something. The "Back Door" method is to wait and see whether or if the people actually do anything and then the bishops run ahead of the movement and proclaim themselves to be shepherd. The risk of course is the people will say "Where were you when we needed you?" But then it does work sometimes.

But what if the bishops don't even do that? What if they decide that they don't care what the people want. Should we have the Sobor anyway? I believe strongly that we should for the sake of the Church.

This issue has the potential to make or break us. It is hard for me to imagine that the bishops don't care but what if they don't? They will be moved along or moved out of the way. It has happened before. There is no reason that it can't happen again. Liturgy is the work of the people. Let's go do it.

CDL

BTW Father has mentioned that he does not wish to lose members over this issue and believes that if the liturgy is forced upon us and we don't have a conference that we will probably lose some of our best members. That is not fair when so many of our priests have worked so hard to build up the kingdom and it isn't fair to us who have worked side by side with them.

One of the first encounters after liturgy was by a man who is ver loyal in the Church. He asked me "What is this business about forcing 'inclusive language' upon us through the liturgy? I left the Roman Church to find a liturgy with integrity." I told him that I don't fully understand it myself but that he should write the bishop with his concerns.

Conference venue? I really don't care all that much. Chicago is a nice place, with one of the most beautiful Greek-Catholic churches anywhere in the world (Yes, I mean Saints Volodymyr and Olha - AAAGGGHHH; IT'S UKRAINIAN! horrors).

Another possibility - don't laugh - is Las Vegas. If you want a bargain, this is it. As long as everyone takes and observes a strict NO GAMBLING pledge, you won't believe how inexpensive Las Vegas is - and there are often bargains available in plane flights too.

If Bishop John of Parma is prepared to be favorable, what's wrong with some venue in or around Cleveland? We have three bishops in that city (counting suburbs).

On the other hand, what is wrong with New England? The major airports are handy, the sea food is delicious, it's not usually roasting hot -and will the anti-Ukrainian fanatics kindly control themselves? Using a conference facilty does not involve changing one's religion, let alone one's ethnic identity.


Ottawa, granted is not the Paris of the New World - but it is pleasant. The Melkite church is absolutely splendid. And those who like to eat will not be discouraged to know that the Henri Burger in Hull is one of the top French restaurants in North America.

For that matter, we could probably arrange to hold our conference on a cruise ship at very favorable rates - does anybody have any contacts in that business?

Anyway, will someone take charge of organizing the venue, since time is short. Those who care will manage to get there (whichis not to say that someone should not be in charge of transportation and housing and seeing to it that this does not turn into a three-day fast). Unfortunately the best conference organizer I know is out of touch for a few days, or I would volunteer him.

Time's a-wastin; let's get busy.

Incognitus

Karl? Father Tom? I'll help as much as possible. BEMA? We organized the last one. Why not this one?

CDL

Incog has a good point - Stamford has fine facilities, a beautiful chapel, and likely the dorm rooms are greatly unnocupied for the summer - and it is still "neutral turf". Easily accessible from La Guardia, JFK or Newark. During my diaconal program days we pretty much had the place to ourselves in the summer.
FDD

Incognitus,

Please send me a pm ASAP or an email. Are you going to come if we plan it? Info. desparately needed from you.

CDL

If BEMA organizes it the easiest local will be Chicago, obviously. I'm conversing with others. We should know shortly whether BEMA can or cannot pull this off.

CDL

This whole dilemma brings to mind that Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth":

...stop childern, what's that sound, everybody look what's going round...

Let us all hope this situation will be resolved without massive casualties.

For what it's worth...
Ungcsertezs

That slumbering bear called Sensus Fidelium starts to awaken...
FDD

Father Tom, et al,

I would agree with the idea of Chicago as an appropriate venue. One reason in particular is the presence of the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein Seminary near Libertyville. Perhaps they would be willing to host such an event, given the nature of the topic.

I would also think that we would need to better define the purpose or desired outcome of such a meeting. If it is to bring two great thinkers on this topic together to present their views in a formal dialogue then I think it will add great value. I am unclear as to how it would effectively involve the many laity and clergy who will come to participate. Is it an opportunity to make suggestions to the committee on next steps? Clearly a delay in promulgation is called for in light of the evidence provided by Father Serge. If the hierarchs agree to a delay, it certainly begs the question: what next?

Parameters can be identified as far as expected behaviors, but it would also be helpful (even essential) to define the scope and desired outcome of the meeting.

My two cents -

Gordo

Friends,

The awakening sensus fidelium bear has at least one name. That name is BEMA. I've been in conversation with Father Thomas Loya and John Segvich, president of BEMA and have sent messages to at least two principle speakers in an attempt to put together a Sobor or Conference for August of this year. We put together a Whiting renewal gathering so I'd guess we can pull this off as well.

Who can come? Will Incognitus reveal himself? Will Fathers Keleher and Petras come. Will some of our bishops come. Will clergy and faithful come?

If we host it it will no doubt be in Chicago because a majority of us live here and because we may not have time to arrange it any place else. Let us know through this forum or by pm or email ASAP so we can measure the feasibility of such a meeting.

CDL

Gordo,

Your suggestions are well founded. Let's talk. See the email I sent you.

CDL

While I am not opposed to any place in particular, I think looking overall at who is concerned and would like to participate (many in our Church, even outside of the US) that statement is a stretch at a minimum. Let's try to at least keep things in perspective, please.

Chicago at least would be within driving distance for some of us here in the Midwest.
FDD

Father Deacon Diak:
What is this "neutral turf" idea? And how is it connected to the idea of sensus fidelum? If this meeting is to have impact, it must feature broad participation of our faithful. Or maybe I misunderstand the impact that is being aimed for.

Diak,

Hhmmm..... I said a majority of BEMA lives in Chicago. Are you coming?

CDL

Really just an easily accessible location travel wise- if the hierarchs do not wish to be proactively involved in calling such a conference, we would obviously need to have it somewhere that everyone can easily get to, possibly from distant areas of the country.
FDD

Good. I hope that the aim can be for broad attendance.

It's a bit premature to talk of "coming" when the when and where have not been worked out. I would love to as this is a topic I have direct and personal interest in, being clergy.

I would be willing to check at the Savior of the World Pastoral Center in Kansas City tommorrow which is the former Archdiocesan seminary, has suites of rooms, a pool, conference rooms and a cafeteria within 20 minutes of Kansas City International. If there is interest, that is.

I stand by my initial comment - while I appreciate all the efforts for Whiting, and again would be happy to attend in the Chicago area, perspective should be maintained as there are far more people than "BEMA" who appear to be concerned about this issue, and certainly far, far more that could be potentially impacted.
FDD

We have one speaker for the conference in Chicago booked. I'll let you know who it is very soon or he might do it himself. He's on this forum.

CDL

I'm not too clear on the idea of "neutral turf" either. I think you make a great point about the need for numbers, djs. Would that make Parma or Pittsburgh the better setting? Perhaps at the Antiochian House of Studies?

One point for consideration in the future - might it not be worth considering involving other Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox jurisdictions in this discussion? (That is, after all, an important aspect of the critique from Father Serge's work.) Since the liturgy itself is intimately linked to proclamation of the Gospel, would it not be interesting to discuss the kerygmatic role of the Divine Liturgy? The issue of "translation" can be discussed in this context.

Just a thought...

Gordo

Gordo, per my response to djs - somewhere that can be easily accessible for travel. That's all, accessible facilities, and probably not the best metaphor I could have used.

I do think the idea of inviting others such as the Orthodox or maybe an expert on the UGCC side of the Ordo like Fr. Peter Galadza for his take on their process in the development of the 1987 English Liturgikon would be benificial.
FDD

I must have been posting about the same time you replied about the "neutral turf" comment.
Your meaning is clear to me now.

And you definitely read my mind about Father Peter! The version published by the institute is marvellous! (Why didn't we just use that one? )

Gordo

One other brief point -

As I said, I definitely agree with the call for a conference. Is it worth considering waiting until the Fall? My reasons for suggesting this are fourfold:

1. We are talking about organizing what could be a pivotal event in the history of our Metropolia. Doesn't this warrant at least some additional planning and time?

2. Unlike Whiting which was designed to facilitate discussion and solicit ideas from the faithful, this conference would involve key presentations. Father Serge's book has barely made it to press. Would it not only be fair to both Father Serge and Father David (and the commission) to give them time to consider his recommendations?

3. We have not yet even defined the nature of the participation by the participants. Is it wise to plan a conference so soon on such a delicate matter without this being done? The nature of the participation may help determine who will participate.

4. Most vacation schedules are set at this point. A September or October session might be more reasonable to facilitate the largest amount of participation.

Just a few thoughts...any responses?

Gordo

Look,

I live in the Chicago Area, and I am willing to travel. So... lets get this set up and get going...

John

Certainly sensible points, Gordo, it will give more time to firm up place, time, speakers and agenda, giving more time to contact and schedule perhaps a larger sample of pertinent speakers as well.

John, I'm with you, bro', it doesn't really matter where (I suppose with some reservations - but, heck that wooden log Russian chapel in Antarctica wouldn't be bad in the summer.
FDD

John,

I agree. But let us consider also the need to involve the hierarchy. As a courtesy, should they not at least receive a formal invitation? I have coordinated large scale retreats and events in my day - I know what can be involved.

May I also remind you that while we had participants from the outside area at the Whiting event, the largest numbers hailed from the local area. We received complaints from others about the timing and the notice. How long does it take ACROD to plan their Sobors? And are not "Sobors" called by the bishop, not the laity?

We definitely need to meet. But would it "derail" anything to wait until late September? I would argue that we risk raising expectations to an unreasonable level if we rush too much.

My two cents,

Gordo

Oh definitely regarding the outplanning - the UGCC often plans a minimum of a year out for the Sobor, as of course they are bringing in people from Australia and New Zealand to the US to down the street in L'viv or Kyiv.
FDD

If we went to Kansas we could scout a location for our Byzantine Village!

That could be arranged - free samples of goat milk, chevre, and lamb meat. Bring your own spinning wheel, fiddle or banjo for the jam session...
FDD

I really enjoy chevre! Rack of lamb???

OK, Everyone just hold on here!

It is great that you want a conference/sobor to air this issue out which is to be commended, but I see a lot of planning and speculation and none of the proper protocols of the church are being followed.

1.) Has anyone in the hierarchy been even approached and a blessing been given for this to have any standing?

2.) If no blessing has been sought, how can can you involve anyone officially without the hierarch's consent i.e. members of the liturgical commission?

3.) Any speakers would have to agree to speak and present at this conference/sobor. Has anyone approached any of the proposed speakers directly and then obtained the permission for them to be involved?

I can go on, and some others have already made mention as to the haste that is being put into this event's planning. If you do not do this the right way, your efforts will not be given any weight within the church, and will make many look bad from the organizers to the hierarchy which could have some negative effects. Instead of speculating and making plans for something that will be for nought, start working at it from the right way and have everyone on board.

You complain that you are not being given the information, well you may not get it in the right way if you do not do this planning and event in the proper manner. By your upsurping the proper protocol, you may be cutting off a golden opportunity to have this addressed in the proper forum.

So let us stop speculating and wishing and start doing it in the right manner.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

We'd be wise to heed Fr. Anthony's words.

While the situation seems like all is lost, we should keep our cool.

What is the purpose of the meeting? Non-confrontational in tone I hope? What type of agenda is best.

The liturgical crisis is likely a sympton of a spiritual sickness. We need the diagnosis and then a cure (which is Christ).

This is about more than BEMA, it really involves the future of Eastern Catholicism. BEMA could help facilitate the conference/workshop.

We need to do this in concert with our Bishops.

In Christ,

John

CDL wrote... What can I say but Yikes! Yes - what you suggest has happened before - I believe it was called the Reformation.

Perhaps the rhetoric can be toned down a bit?


~Isaac

Amen to John and Father Anthony!

But let's be sure not to "drop the proverbial ball"...we just need to ensure that we have a gameplan...and that takes time!

Gordo

The track record of the Bishops thus far would suggest that they are not going to give the laity the time of day on this subject. If this should prove to be the case, after attempting to follow protocol, what happens next?

We shouldn't presume to judge, nor preempt in a potentially impatient or imprudent manner. We really need to let the hierarchs at least have the opportunity to act and lead - that is a minimal respect we can show them at this difficult time. Fr. Anthony is right. Regarding what ifs - we can worry about those forever. Contingencies can be discussed and thrown around when the need arises.
FDD

I'll suggest an answer in a couple of days. In other words, I agree with Diak.

CDL

I agree and I will. However, my references were not to Protestantism. It has happened many times throughout the Church and it has happened, before my time, but in the BC Church.

CDL

I think there is a lot of apprehension, and, with
the blessing of the interenet, a lot of feedback about this apprehension. Noise + feedback makes coherent excitation.

Is this a more pivotal event than the change to English? Probably not. Than the publication of the 1965 Liturgikon ? Probably so. Is this the last English edition we will have? Fr. Petras already said that he expects the answer to the last question is no; and I agree.

I am not sure what the criteria of "fair" are in this context. It really depends on the goals of the meeting.

I haven't seen a suggestion to this end as yet, but I would welcome representatives also from the GOA - which may be the largest Orthodox group with English-language liturgies. I would like to hear how the Greeks wrestled with "philanthropos" and why they opted for renderings that are similar, and in some case identical, to those that are used in our new text, as posted by Bl Theodore. Perhaps this is a case where the the line from the Instructions on "deviating ... as little as possible" will have the emphasis on "as possible" rather than "as little". I think it would be fair also to hear from Paul Meyendorff.

Thanks you Fr. Anthony's, for your post.

What are we thinking about doing, anyway?

I have sent a note to Bishop John asking for his blessing. My hope is that the meeting will be educational in nature. There seems to be enough interest in having a meeting. I don't wish it to be confrontational. If the approach is to have the text available for all participants and have the commission and Father Keleher there to go through the entire liturgy that would be optimal. My hope is that we will also have Luke from New Mexico there so that he can share his concerns but also hear from the commission.

Father and others are right to council prudence. Pray that we will follow such advice but that we will move ahead as well. Promulgation of the any liturgy should be done only after it is given a thorough review by the people. That is my hope.

CDL

djs,

I'm not sure of your point. The subtlety is perhaps lost on me...are you just trying to set it all in perspective? I certainly would not say that this meeting's level of importance would trump everything else that has gone before. But, apart from the internet, it would be the first chance (to my knowledge) that a larger portion of the laity and clergy have had to come together to discuss this critical issue. In that sense, I see it as "pivotal".

"Fairness" in this context means time for the speakers to prepare their remarks...time for the hierarchs and the commission to process Father Serge's comments...maybe not the best choice of words. How about the overused word "appropriate"? :p

I would personally agree, djs. I think there should be some effort at a pan-Byzantine conference to tackle these issues, in the context of the mission of Eastern Christianity in the English-speaking world.

But barring an harmonic convergence of cosmic proportions hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, that larger event will not take place in six weeks. Some people expect more notice for birthday parties! I think we are talking about two events - one smaller and more specific to the Metropolia (with Father David and Father Serge). The other much larger with a broader scope involving far more planning.

Gordo

I'm with you on that, John. I'll bring my hammer and nails. We can have a church raising party to start! (Where's Jimmy Carter when you really need him...)

Gordo

I wish to reiterate why I have stuck my neck out to see if we can have a meeting on this proposed liturgy. My concern has not been first and foremost about the liturgy. I am no liturgist. I have a vague sense that political correctness is a danger to the Church. I see that playing around with gender specifications has brought great harm to American and probably European Christianity. I'm a strong believer in the principles of the Theology of the Body but that isn't even my primary concern. Nor am I interested in pounding away at the translation committee. God knows, preparing new translations is a difficult task and rather thankless. I have the greatest admiration for Father David.

My concern is two fold.

First, I came to the Church because I was tired of the theological chaos of Protestantism. When I looked at Roman Catholicism I saw a great deal of that same chaos. I didn't not realize it fully but a good deal of it came or was reflected in the chaos that had become the liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church. So, I bypassed the RCs. The sense of the people I respect here see the possibility of that same chaos creeping in the Eastern Catholic Church in the form of this new recension.

Are they correct. I have no idea. I see gentle and highly regarded people on both sides of the issue. Yet, I don't have the liturgy in front of me. People wish to examine it in a forum in which fruitful discussion is possible before it is promulgated. I believe they are correct. So, let's do it before it is promulgated. Will we need more than one setting in which to do that? Some of my trusted friends believe so. They may well be right. Be that as it may, one cannot have a second meeting without a first. So, let's have a first. BEMA has a track record and they have agreed to set up the place and set certain positive parameters as they did last August in Whiting. I have made a few initial contacts. We will see what happens.

Second, my primary urge is beyond the liturgy. One of the reasons I was eager to become Eastern Catholic is because we a reason for existence. It is articulated, even if not everyone is on board with it. Our mission, our reason for existence, is to bring Orthodoxy and Catholicism back together. I know, I know. Those who aren't Eastern Catholic consider us to be either traitors or an annoyance. Why wouldn't they? Our very existence is a constant reminder of their worst failure. Some within the Eastern Catholic family have even bought into their worst descriptions of us.

I do not. We are Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Someday, and none of us may live long enough to see it, millions will be Orthodox in Communion with Rome and millions upon millions will be Catholic in communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, and Moscow.

The best way to fulfill that mission is to tell it over and over and over to the end that we stop shrinking and start growing.

I love this Church. I love our bishops, clergy, and faithful. Let's get focused and let's get going. It seems providential to me that the catalyst for positive movement is a serious discussion of our liturgy.

Let's do it.

CDL

Karl and John S have weighed in on a conference. Things are looking up. We have a principle speaker and may be getting more. We shall see.

CDL

On the book thread we are left with two questions appropos to this issue: Do all of the priests in the Metropolia have Father Serge's book or not? If they do, how do with thank the anonymous benefactor?

If every priest has one and if every priest has a copy of the proposed translation it should be easy to have a conference with educated laity provided that: 1. Every priest makes both the new translation and Father's book available to the laity; and 2. Every Church comes with representatives of that Church.

I'm pretty sure that every priest has a copy of the new proposed translation. Does in fact every priest have a copy of Father Keleher's book? If not how do we get the book to them?

CDL

Fr. Serges book has not been sent to each priest of the Metropolia. At least not my parish priest.

If your parish priest has not received a copy of the book, this should be reported to Stauropegion Press immediately. The Press complained at the time that it was proving difficult to obtain accurate, up-to-date lists of the clergy names and addresses.

Fr. Serge

I'm confused. Who authorized the sending in the first place? Who paid for it?

CDL

Dan, I think it's a secret.

Given the way that our clergy is already divided six ways from Sunday it is a darned foolish thing to have done, a very poorly calculated risk.

This will only serve to divide our clergy even further.

I am not sure this evening if the I prefer the role of the puppet, the string, the boards or the jerk.

I guess it's not only our bishops who think we are idiots.

Eli

And don't pull my note either, for God's sake.

Let something honest stand as it is. Even if I am wrong or impolitic!!

Eli

I had missed this. I apologize for my private note to you, Father and for the public ones.

Now I have to go and soak in ice water and try to get my BP back in some kind of normal range.

Eli

Lazareno writes:

To which Fr Serge responds:

If Lazareno's "from" identification (California) is an indication, then one could deduce that Lazareno's parish priest serves the Eparchy of Van Nuys. Last I checked the most accurate, up-to-date lists of clergy names and addresses are readily available in the public domain with no difficulty at all. This holds true for the other eparchies of the Metropolia as well.

Surely, if the author and his publisher could undertake a critique of the proposed liturgy which was not in the public domain without any difficulty, then they should be able to find clergy names and addresses which are.

And, surely, if whoever sent the book missed a few clergy, all the arguments in it must be worthless!

Having previously owned and operated my own publishing business and engaged multiple times in the mass mailing of books, I routinely had to count on roughly 3% never arriving at their destination. Believe it or not, items often become lost in transit or are inexplicably returned even with accurate mailing labels attached.

~Isaac

I'm just a junior member, not a theologian or scholar. I have not read the entire proposed liturgy, although I admit to having put in my 2 cents on what I didn't like about what I had read. That said, here are some questions and concerns I have about this thread:

1. Was the laity ever involved in the authoring or revising of any Byzantine or Orthodox liturgy? If not, why should we be involved now?

2. If every church/parish is to send a representative, who will determine who is to be sent? The pastor? A committee of parishioners? Who appoints the committee? What ramifications will the determination have on the unity between pastor and parishioners, and among parishioners?

3. One of the hottest issues appears to be the inclusive language. From what I've seen on this Forum, no one (myself included) appears to favor that change. Surely there must be a few Byzantine feminists. What happens if they send a contingent to the conference?

4. It seems only right to have one liturgy approved and implemented throughout the Metropolia. But to tell the truth, I'm not sure why new translations were required, unless to correct errors of theological importance. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that no matter who and how many are involved in the revision, there are going to be a lot of people who are not happy with the result. Barring theological error, it seems the better practice to have a minimum people involved, all of whom were engaged from the start. Otherwise, we could be in danger of creating the proverbial blind men's elephant, or worse, a piece of Congressional legislation. At the risk of being flamed, I'll ask: Since when is the Catholic Church a democracy? Aren't we supposed to be humbly obedient to our priests and bishops?

Finally, as a cantor I know what we're going through with regard to the changes in music. I hear cantors complaining that "We've sung it this way for over 50 years, why do we need to 'go back' further?" And I've heard parishioners complain that they don't like the "new music." All this is a factor of change. In two or three years, we'll be used to the new music and only a few diehards will talk about how great the music was back in the "old days." The rest of us will move on.

I love the Byzantine Church; that's why I joined my parish and requested and received a change of rite. I love our liturgy; that's why I have made the effort to learn the various services so that I could become a cantor. I probably won't like everything about the new liturgy, but "I will sing to the Lord as long as I live" whatever liturgy is given to me, approved by the bishops.

Sophia

Well apparently there are some significant, shall we say, unnecessary theological ambiguities introduced into the liturgy over time.

The numbers of people involved impact in several ways. Most significantly the numbers responding to reject the current iteration, whatever it is at the moment, will indicate to the bishops that there are more important issues than personal preferences or a passing fancy.

Religious indifference is no more inherently holy that some sort of religious rebellion. What is going on here can hardly be classified as a protestors revolt. As it gains more focus and less momentum, it will be more helpful than destructive.

Eli

Liturgy means the work of the people. It is not the private sphere of scholars squirreled away in some ivory tower. We experience the awesome mysteries of the Holy Trinity during divine worship. Through the work we do at Liturgy in our chant, our bows, kissing icons, lighting candles, etc. we learn our theology.

A theologian, especially in our Eastern Christian tradition, is first and foremost someone who lives a life immersed in our authentic Carpatho-Rusyn spirituality. So, in a sense we are all called to be theologians.

John S.,

I believe the present course of pushing this translation is a good way to kill the spirit of the people. This doesn't just come from this forum but this forum is representative of some of the most active people in our parishes.

djs and Father David are correct when they remind us that the bishops have a right to do this. They have a right to close Churches. They have a right to do all sorts of things. But will excercising that right serve the purpose of growth or will it be an excercise in destruction.

Some wit suggested that we should comfort our bishops as they watch their actions force the Church in decline by reassuring them that they are actually "accomplishing what they were consecrated by Rome to do." I'm not quite that cynical about Rome though there has been ample evidence that Rome would like to see us disappear. But the observation that the bishops actions have been one of the factors in our precipitous decline is hard to avoid.

CDL

Dear Carson,

You write: "djs and Father David are correct when they remind us that the bishops have a right to do this. They have a right to close Churches. They have a right to do all sorts of things. But will excercising that right serve the purpose of growth or will it be an excercise in destruction."

However, according to quite orthodox, classic Roman Catholic theology, even the Pope is required always to act in aedificationem ecclesiae. Never may the Pope act in destructionem ecclesiae.

Should a Pope so much as attempt to act in a fashion toward the destruction of the Church, he would be abusing his authority and subject to correction from the source of that authority - Almighty God, Who is perfectly free to choose the instruments of that correction. There are examples in point (the history of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is one).

Well, if even the Pope cannot do such a thing, still less can a diocesan bishop do it.

Fr. Serge Keleher

Having the POWER to do a thing, and the RIGHT to do it are very distinct things, one from the other.

I agree with both you and Star. Our mistake was to seek a blessing if at least not permission. We got what we deserved. We thought it fair to invite a member of the commission. Now we are faced with...nevermind. Suffice it to say, you are correct.

CDL

Fr. Serge wrote: Of course, Father. But what relevance, if any, are you suggesting that this comment has to situation under discussion?

djs,

Do you believe it is possible for a bishop to mean to act aedificationem ecclesiae but in reality act destructionem ecclesiae?

Why or why not?

How do you believe this all fits into sensus fidelium?

Nick

A very interesting question, acting for the "building up" of the Church, or for its harm?

Even this terrible revision of the Liturgy has some good to it.

It is curious how it seems to have united many people, would not otherwise agree about much at all. I spoke to my pastor, who says he has spoken to many priests, who have spoken to many other priests. It seems that everyone is united in hatred for this revision.

Granted everyone seems to hate it for different reasons. Some hate it because of the abbreviations, some hate it because of inclusive language, some hate it because of the new music, some hate it because of the expense involved. But every priest seems to hate it. They can't think of a single priest in the Metropolia who is behind this revision. (Except for Fr. David, of course, who is the only priest to speak here in its defense).

So I would say, this Liturgy revision has done more to unite the clergy than anything in recent memory. It is just a shame they are united in opposition to what the Liturgy commission is proposing.

Hasn't the Archbishop considered how difficult it is going to be to force this issue on the Church, which seems to hate the idea? How is he going to do this without the priests? If the Archbishop doesn't have the priests with him on this, I don't know how he will accomplish it.

Nick

Clearly there is resistance from any of the priests that I know in the Metropolia, and they say the same for others as well, but more than that there is a profound distrust, and I believe rightfully so, of that which has been kept hidden from them for so long. It is not as though we are a huge Church with unmanageable numbers.

How does this square with the claim that all knew, or all know, or that there has been no secrecy? That part of it is still very disturbing to me. The priests and pastors of the Metropolia have been given no part at all in the process. Nothing.

Of course all of our new priests, since 2004 or so [?], are going to be acclimated to the new ways. I guess the old guard can follow suit or leave. That's how they do it in the Latin rite.

Eli

Nicholas,


"They can't think of a single priest in the Metropolia who is behind this revision. (Except for Fr. David, of course, who is the only priest to speak here in its defense)."

To be fair there are already parish priests (at least here in Pittsburgh) who use the revised rubrics, I can think of 6 offhand I have served with that do. Of course this doesn't mean they are for the new translation, inclusive language, or new music.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Then why did you bring it up?

If by destruction, you mean - oh, this didn't work out as well as intended - then yes. But if you really mean destruction, I would say probably not. I am comfortable that the church, ultimately, is in good hands.

Well, I guess we will all get a sense of who is faithful.

"Then why did you bring it up?"

To refute the idea that every single priest is vehemently opposed to every part of the revision and to show some parts of the revision are in use and the sky hasn't fallen.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Why are you concluding that those who disagree with this liturgical revision must also believe that the church is not in good hands?

What do you mean by this?

Are you saying that those who oppose things like abbreviations, missing litanies, inclusive language, new music and unneeded financial expenditures are unfaithful?

I guess some were hoping for better from the new litugy than it didn't cause the sky to fall. I suppose it is alright just to stumble along. But it would have been nice to leep forward particularly given our decline and the potential for growth.

CDL

No.

If, by law, it is the very bishop in question who gets to decide if his actions are in the best interest or not, or gets to choose those who will make that determination, what practical meaning does "destructionem ecclesiae" have at that point.

Also I think you've overstated the magnitude of the real power of papal supremacy, but that is for another lifetime's discussion.

Eli

Dan,

Well the parishes that are using the new rubrics are also installing icon screens, communing infants, have deacons and/or candidates and are restoring other traditions and generally doing better than they were previously. So I consider it a step forward rather than simply stumbling.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Could you offer us, both clergy and laity here, who tend to represent the rear guard some specific sense of what changes in the rubrics have served directly to bring about this remarkable metanoia?

Also is this truly a remarkable metanoia? I haven't been in any of our parishes where those things are not already done or most of them. Perhaps I've just gotten lucky?

Give us a little more of substance here. I think it is important to put flesh on the bones of assertion at this time.

Eli

Father Deacon,

But I didn't say that every priest I heard about objected to it for every reason. Only that everyone hated the revised Liturgy and music for some reason.

I've been to some Liturgies where the new rubrics are in use too, and the sky hasn't fallen, but my heart did. Those rubrics change the whole 'feel' of our Liturgy, it's just not our Liturgy anymore.

It sounds like an "intellectual" argument here on this forum, between right and wrong translations, the merits of inclusive/exclusive language.

But the real point for me, is how much this revision hurts. I love our Liturgy, there was nothing wrong with it, and it didn't need revision. It just breaks my heart.

I know the Archbishop doesn't have to care about me and my feelings. But in an ideal world, I wish he would.

Nick

Good. It’s good to know that your suggestion that those who disagree with the revisions are unfaithful was not something you really believe.

Can you please answer my other question?

Why are you concluding that those who disagree with this liturgical revision must also believe that the church is not in good hands?

Or did you mean something else with your suggestion?

If something else, can you please clarify what you meant?

Eli,

"Could you offer us, both clergy and laity here, who tend to represent the rear guard some specific sense of what changes in the rubrics have served directly to bring about this remarkable metanoia?"

As Fr. Thomas Loya has remarked elsewhere on the site, the chanting of the Anaphora aloud is probably the single biggest factor coupled with enthusiastic priests.

"Also is this truly a remarkable metanoia? I haven't been in any of our parishes where those things are not already done or most of them. Perhaps I've just gotten lucky?"

Perhaps, it depends were you are at I suppose. In the Archeparchy, many parishes still lack the above.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nick,

What specifically about the new rubrics don't you like? Is it those things that are missing like the litanies or extra verses or the added things like prayers aloud?

Myself, I don't mind the Liturgy either way but I really love to hear the Anaphora chanted aloud and can't believe there are people who don't want to hear it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I made no such suggestion.

I made no such conclusion.

I think that those who see "destruction" are wrong. I ask those who bring this up to support it or reconsider it. Likewise fidelity has nothing to do with whether one would have made the same decisions as bishop, or likes those decisions being made by our actual bishops; it has to do with how one acts in the aftermath of those decisions (hence my use of future tense).

So it is enthusiastic priests and not the rubrics actually?

I think that is what I am getting at.

What did the change in rubrics do that a well placed order from the bishop on any occasion of a pastoral visit would not have done?

Or if you like, how does chanting the anaphora aloud result in more infant's communing, or the appearance of an icon screen?

Are you sending the message to our priest's that all they need to is chant the Anaphora loudly enough to be heard, and all will be well in their parishes?

Have these renewed priests passed along the great news of this wonderwork to their brother priests? One would think they'd want to encourage all their brother priests to get on board. Why has that not happened?

Eli

Dear Deacon Lance,

I don't like the fact that they are new rubrics, inventions, revisions, changes in the Recension as published by Rome.

The rubrics in the old Liturgicon, together with the instructions in the Ordo and Norms, are just fine the way they are and don't need to be changed, re-organized or re-written.

Where there is no specific rubric (silently, or "out loud") there is freedom. Don't write it in. Where the books say one or the other, the translation should say EXACTLY the same thing, only in English.

Over the next 50 to 100 years, the anaphora may come to be taken aloud more and more, I don't deny it. Then, after the fact, we can 'update' rubrics to reflect this organic development.

Read Cardinal Ratzinger on the reforms of Vat II. He says that "mandating" liturgy changes (as was done in the Latin West) was unheard of anywhere in the Church before Vat II's reforms. It has never been successfully done in the East. (Though Fr. David cited the one example of Nikon of Moscow! Hardly a successful model to follow.)

Deacon Lance, the rubrics I don't like are all those that are not exact, faithful, literal translations of those that are in the approved Slavonic books.

Is that such a hard thing to accept?

Nick

That's very encouraging for the short run. If the translation is that good why is it being hidden from most of us?

CDL

djs writes that my ecclesiology (expressed in my last posting) is correct, but why do I think the points I made are relevant.

I was responding specifically to a posting stating that Bishops could do, basically, whatever they please. They have no such right. Nobody does. Even Almighty God does not act by whim.

Another question has come up in the course of the discussion: is it possible for a bishop (presumably even the Pope) to believe, genuinely, that he is acting for the upbuilding of the Church while in fact the result of his action is destructive?

Well of course it is - nobody except Almighty God is omniscient, especially where the future is involved. In such a case, the bishop would not be morally culpable, since presumably he used ordinary prudence and asked for the Divine guidance (often called "the grace of office") but misinterpreted the data, so to speak. Anyone can be thoroughly wrong without being wilfully dishonest.

On the other hand, God and the Church expect the Christians, especially the ordained clergy, to go to considerable trouble to form their consciences accurately and to alert to the guidance of God. There is such a thing as wilful deafness!

Nevertheless, ultimate judgement belongs to God.

Fr. Serge

Even if there are all these parishes using the new rubrics, who are otherwise making progress in genuine renewal, don't you see a conflict here?

Why can't we restore the WHOLE tradition? Why pick and choose, this tradition here, that innovation there, this old custom here, that new invention there.

It is flawed. We must be faithful 100% While I am happy to hear of infant communion or icons here and there, we can't pick and choose some traditional ideas and some renovationist ideas according to whim and pleasure.

Why can't we be consistent? Why can't we embrace the whole Ruthenian tradition? Why do we have to take some ideas from one vision, and others from another?

Inclusive language from liberal Jesuits and radical Notre Dame Liturgy seminars in the 1970's, together with a Latin "mandating" of reforms, even together with infant communion and icon screens, does not strike me as a genuine renewal, but rather an awkward attempt at "selected" elements from the tradition!

Renewal is not a smorgasbord. Real revitalization will not be "buffet-style" help yourself, according to your mood and taste and appetite at the time.

It's like picking this litany, that antiphon verse, according to someone's taste. It will never work. The only thing that will work and unite the Church, is to pick and select EXACTLY what is found in the official books, and translate them EXACTLY.

We have to study the Ruthenian Recension, live the tradition, and comform our lives to it as completely and carefully as we can.

Dabbling at renewal (icons and infant communion) while at the same time advocating revision (inclusive language, invented rubrics, abbreviations and re-organizing the typicon and services) is doomed to fail in the long run, because it is "half-****d" and misguided. It has no integrity, and will end poorly.

I ask, why can't we restore the WHOLE tradition? Why can't we distinguish between the wheat and the chaff?

Organic development is fine, but first we have to fully appropriate and live the WHOLE tradition. Otherwise, it is misguided arrogance.

Why can't we restore the WHOLE tradition?

Nick

Why can't we restore the WHOLE tradition?

Nick

----

Perhaps there is a perception that the laity can't handle it?

Well I for one, can handle it, and I'm asking for the whole tradition.

Is this clerical arrogance, by another name? There must be some pressure group campaigning for revision, inclusive language etc. They are being heard by the Archbishop! They have his ear.

Why won't he listen to us, who only want our tradition? Don't we count? Aren't we entitled to be on any committees?

Just because we didn't go to Notre Dame school of liberal liturgy, and don't rush after feminism and other fads, I guess we're too boring to be heard. All the liberal clergy want is our dollars and our obedience.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,
I've deleted my former post because it is too negative.

Note the language these days. The 'Archibishop' and others the 'Metropolitan'. I have noted how since the death of Metropolitan Judson that there has been a shrinking back to 'Archbishop'. Not the head of a church just another American Archbishop, one amongst many. Is it that the Byz bishops are not ready for this self governing church stuff, all a bit too much for them. Did it all come to quickly to them?

Now to make more coffee.

Real Renewal is a whole package. The MCI has done wonderful work on our chant. The ECF programs are full of great materials. Now we need the full and complete Divine Liturgy.

Well, we agree on two out of three!

The ECF has great materials, and we need the full and complete Divine Liturgy.

Nick

I've noted that presumption. Why don't they find out through a conference. They may fear that we are more capable than they presume.

CDL

Make it strong. We're going to be up late I think.

Which tradition are you following in your suggestion of criticism here? Greek or Slavic?

The Crown represents the Metropolis. The Crozier represents the Ecclisia.

There is a Slavic and Antiochian tradition with the use of Metropolitan and Archbishop, in rank order.

There is a Greek tradition with the use of Archbishop and Metropolitan, in rank order.

To which tradition is the Byzantine Church going to hew? Greek or Slavic?

Also an Archbishop may have provenence over suffragen bishops in his Archbishopric.

Does the Byzantine Archbishop Basil have provenence over suffragen bishops?

Does he not have it?

Why not?

Does he have it and not use it?

If so, and no, why not?

Eli

The one that matters is the answer. The one that is appropriate to the statement. I very well aware of the Greek Church and my own Slavic tradition and the usuage of the titles in both and how they line up with each other.

His Beatitude the Metroplitan heads the Particular Church (BCC). There are 4 Hierarchs in that particular Church including the Metropolitan. These details are available through many sources.

Dear Pavel,

I hope you do not think me rude here but this does not answer my questions. In fact I don't really understand what you are saying here at all.

Not only is your response unclear to me but the behaviors of the hierarchy of my Church do not make the answers very clear to me, at all, so I will ask one last time here in hopes that someone can answer, what I believe to be, legitimate questions. I may have possible answers in principle but I do not know if the Archbishop of the Byzantine Church for example has provenence over suffragen bishops? Some Archbishops do, some do not. What does it mean? How does one know? What are the canons that regulate such things?

Which tradition are you following in your suggestion of criticism here? Greek or Slavic?

The Crown represents the Metropolis. The Crozier represents the Ecclisia.

There is a Slavic and Antiochian tradition with the use of Metropolitan and Archbishop, in rank order.

There is a Greek tradition with the use of Archbishop and Metropolitan, in rank order.

To which tradition is the Byzantine Church going to hew? Greek or Slavic?

Also an Archbishop may have provenence over suffragen bishops in his Archbishopric.

Does the Byzantine Archbishop Basil have provenence over suffragen bishops?

Does he not have it?

Why not?

Does he have it and not use it?

If so, and no, why not?

Eli

Ok. The BCC is a Slavic Byz. Cath. Tradition. This means that in decending order it is Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archibishop (may also be the Metropolitan), Bishop (in Greek usuage refered to as Metropolitan.

The BCC Province (also a 'Particular Church' in this case) is one Metropolitan who is the Archbishop of Pittsburgh and 3 suffragan bishops (of Eparchy of Parma, Eparchy of Van Nuys and Eparchy of Passaic) This provides coverage for the entire USA (ALL states). There are no assistant bishops. However there is a retired bishop in ill health formerly of Van Nuys.

I hope that clear this up for you. Further info is available on http://www.byzcath.org/

I hope this has been helpful.

There are actually two retired Bishops (Bishop Michael and Bishop George).

But, we are well off-topic in this thread calling for a conference.

the unworthy,
Elias

Yes, I have to agree, this thread is way off topic. Can be get back on topic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I'll give it a go...

I think we talk ourselves to death so we won't have to actually do anything. Fear makes us all avoid loving action. If we loved God and His Church more than we feared repurcussions we'd have a conference on the future of the Church with the liturgy as one of the topics.

Do you all want our Church to continue the downward spiral we're in?

We let Luke stick his neck out in New Mexico and watch as the rug is pulled out from under him. Such courage. :rolleyes:

Father Maximos and the HRM was willing to offer wonderful spiritual fortifications to the Church but because of cowardice their support was pulled. We watched it happen. :rolleyes:

Several Churches are closed? Sure the bishop had the power to do it but nothing was done to make these positive moves. They were just shut down with no redeeming reason. We watched it happen. Such courage. :rolleyes:

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the liturgy but many of you have complained strongly about some of the changes. Having a conference would be one way for our bishops to show some positive leadership. Nothing. Nothing at all except the word that it would take a miracle if the liturgy was not promulgated as is. We watch it happen and do nothing. Such courage. :rolleyes:

We see tiny little churches all over the place. There's certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with tiny little Churches but why are half of all of the Churches in the eparchy of Parma in Cleveland? Why do we have people begging to be considered for ordination and nothing happening? Why don't we hear from our bishops in clear, compassionate, and passionate terms where they intend to lead us? We watch and nothing happens. Such courage. :rolleyes:

Let's bring it even closer to home. There must be more real evangelization going on than what anyone reads on these fora. There has to be. A person can do more evangelization than what we've read here by simply taking a few breaths. How can one say one is moving along in theosis if they are not sharing the Gospel?

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm thankful for the few stories that we've read and I'm certain that God is using them for His glory and for our good, but really, its like pulling teeth. So much talk around the subject and so little offering of what is being done. (God bless you Sophia and Luke. Keep up the good work.) But how can we just sit by and watch this decline and this lack of leadership and do so little? How can we sit back and watch some priests and some laypeople stick their necks out and watch them get chopped off and do nothing? How can we just watch it happen? Such courage.

Someone advised me to just sit back and watch. Don't let others know what you are doing. This is Church politics and people play dirty. As you can see I'm not taking his advice.

Why? If my priest who has much to lose can stick his neck out I'm sure not going to sit around and do nothing when I have virtually nothing to lose.

There is something very freeing when one leaves everything they knew, almost all of their friends, everything one has trained for and practiced, and the only means of support to become a member of the BC Church. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

What have you given up for the Gospel and for the most beautiful liturgy the world has ever seen? What? What?

CDL

Here here!

There, there!

I can't see that happening. Engagement, capacity building, Inclusiveness and collaboration are not in the language and style of the Holy Synod of the BCC.

The churches in Cleveland are there because that's were the Slavs emigrated to -- plain and simple. Scott you shouldn't be hung-up on the number of churches in Cleveland, or in any other area for that matter. As one poster said, we should not be closing churches, we should be evangelizing to people in the surrounding neighborhoods. Those churches in Cleveland should be full -- filled with people who live in the area whether or not they are Slavs.

The down fall of may current Byzantine Catholic Churches is that the people believe the Byzantine Church belongs to the Slavs. Our people (the average joe in the pew) need to be educated on the state of our church. I firmly believe that many people would be more welcoming if they understood the peril the church is facing. Byzantine Catholics need to understand that the Byzantine Church is open to all, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Should we have churches in every state and major city -- yes! Should we close churches in Cleveland, no -- we should evangelize so that those churches become the model. But, alas, we have to begin, and in that I share Carson Daniel Lauffer's frustrations!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cathy:
"Our people (the average joe in the pew) need to be educated on the state of our church. I firmly believe that many people would be more welcoming if they understood the peril the church is facing. Byzantine Catholics need to understand that the Byzantine Church is open to all, regardless of race or ethnicity."

---------------

That's why we need some sort of town hall at the very least, so folks understand what is happening to the Church. We need a vision.

Are we so afraid of another Fr. Alexis Toth or Fr. Orestes Chornock leading the few people that remain back to Holy Orthodoxy? Perhaps this is the great fear keeping us from meeting.

The truth is, we'll drive most folks who are the future of our church in the direction of ACROD or the OCA by doing nothing anyway.

Why not go down courageously? We do still read from the Synaxarion in our churches, right? Think of the martyrs and what they did because they were on fire for the Lord!

The numbers of immigrants in Cleveland is not 50% of all of the number of immigrants in the entire Eparchy. Too many priests are tied up in Cleveland and not enough are available in the wastelands of such out of the way places as Southern Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa and the like. Most of those tiny chapels of convenience are subsidized by the rest of the Church. If they were growing that would be one thing. But without more priests tying them up in a bunch of little Churches in unconscionable. Don't close the Churches. Combine the Churches. That's what we've been saying over and over again.

CDL

John,

"The truth is, we'll drive most folks who are the future of our church in the direction of ACROD or the OCA by doing nothing anyway."

The Melkites don't seem to fear meeting. Why are we so fearful?

CDL

To the people in the pews, it's the same thing, and I would agree you're splitting hairs. In Cleveland/Parma proper, there are probably three churches that could be combined. The rest are fairly spread out, now I realize not to your liking, but they are on different sides of the river.

We really need to evangelize. A friend emailed an article to me in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer about some Roman Catholic Churches in Cleveland celebrating the Latin Mass, although not officially given permission to do so. The real meaning -- there is a large number of Catholics who want/need a Liturgy that is more traditional. We need to let them know that Catholics have choices. Someone at the Chancery needs to contact the reporter at that paper and educate them on what is available to Catholics in the Cleveland-area.

Those are the types of steps we need to take. When we sit, we lose these opportunities.

They are Roman Catholics they are not the same they just can't slide over. The byzantine is NOT just another form of Mass that RCs can just substitute for their own. All we would be doing is buying into their problems. Those Byzantine churches flooded out by Tredentines have been very sorry they had them around when they tried making changes. San Diego UGCC a case in mind. If on the otherhand they were genuinely interested in the whole Byzantine situation and were ready to abandon all goes with the Latin rite, then that would be Ok. They could be intergrated without disturbance to the congregation.

Cathy,

If you believe it would be useful that the paper be contacted why don't you do that?

Pavel,

I agree with you. We aren't flooded with angry trads at Annunciation. In fact, I don't know of any. But we aren't Latin Trad's in disguise. We are Byzantines. Every Church should evangelize but unless we put more priests on roller skates and send them around to more parishes we don't have enough priests without combining parishes to expand into new territory. For that matter, if the bishops are serious about implementing "Heaven on Earth" I doubt the a 20 member congregation could do it.

I sure wish the "Heaven on Earth" text could be made available.

CDL

Dan: We've had an annul meeting - the Uniontown Pilgrimage - for over seventy years. Does that meeting need to be re-modeled for more seminars and social functions rather than emphasizing prayer and sacraments? How would that help us?

I agree with this point totally. We cannot take for our churches for granted. We need to confront some unpleasant realities about how we've been doing that, and how that puts us in jeopardy.

Are you suggesting that more fear will make us less fearful? I doubt that it works that way.

CDL

Isn't 9/11 a case in point?

9/11 produce a rather thin broth of patriotism I should think. Wouldn't it be better to witness because of our love of God and not fear of institutional extinction?

CDL

Oh definately because of the love of God. However, priests have reported so many coming back to God because of 9/11. They heard confession for hours on end, also people who had not come in some cases that I heard a half century went to confession.

You are right, they did it for the wrong reason, but the fact is they did.

I was speaking with a young woman that I think is 21. She said she thought she had all the time in the world to come to Jesus, until...she fell and broke her hand and ended up with Arithmia of her heart, they had trouble stopping, and don't know why it happened so far. She said it has been a real wake up call to her. Sadly enough it is fear that brought her to that decision. But, we are a comfortable people, and all to often God has to knock us off our white horses to get our attention.

Pani Rose

I agree with you Pani Rose. Remember, the church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners.

"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
- Anonymous

Hiding what is really going on is exactly what many are complaining the hierarchs are doing with the new Liturgy. The truth will set us free. Free to make better choices as a parish family and really think about how we proclaim the gospel to others.

"Dan: We've had an annul meeting - the Uniontown Pilgrimage - for over seventy years. Does that meeting need to be re-modeled for more seminars and social functions rather than emphasizing prayer and sacraments? How would that help us?"

A Pilgrimage and a conference are two different sorts of gatherings, and trying to combine the two in one weekend does not strike me as a sensible exercise.

Fr. Serge