I am a "traditional" Roman rite catholic (a convert from the protestant world.) My family and I have recently started attending a Byzantine liturgy every other Sunday because of the length of drive to our local indult and we have found it to be an amazing experience. Having only known that the Eastern rite churches existed intellectually before, for the first time we are gaining a understanding of the true depth and breadth of the Catholic Church - there is more than the Roman rite and if I had known about it before converting, well the draw towards the East is strong now that I have discovered and learned more.

The byzantine rite as I have seen it is a very beautiful and an intensely theological (teaching) experience. The reverence for the Eucharist and the substantial recognition of the office of the priest is very moving (a respect that has been lost in the Roman Church). It is impossible to attend without understanding that it is a sacrifice (and not a "meal".) The chanting, and ... I could go on, but I will just leave it at "Wow!" Our entire world view has been turned upside down and when we return home after liturgy our conversation is peppered with discussion about our experience.

So I have course wanted to learn more and am planning to buy some books from the Byzantine Seminary Press, but have also been reading these forums and I have found answers to many of my questions about the Byzantine Church.

However, coming from a traditional background, I am of course interested in the state of your liturgy. I have been trying to figure out if the the changes that are coming to the Byzantine liturgy are on the order of the (revolutionary/dumbing down) changes that happened to the Roman liturgy post Vatican II. I have looked through all of the "new" & "old" liturgical translations I can find on these forums and elsewhere, but I don't have a good feel for your liturgy yet. Are the changes more organic or more revolutionary? I have seen discussions regarding bad theology, but are the theological issues on par with the bad theology that invaded the Novus Ordo Missal? Are the changes in questionable translations truly as bad as some of the Novus Ordo Missal translations? Are there potential changes in the future that could be as shocking/devastating to the Byzantine Church as have been experienced in the Roman Church? Are there aspects of the revised liturgy that are especially good either? These are the type of questions I am attempting to answer, so I would be interesting in any reasoned input that anyone may have. From what I have read on these forums, I understand that it may be difficult to answer my questions due to a seeming lack of communication from the IELC with anyone about the proposed changes.

Thank you,
Bruno

Out of the mouth of babes.
Alexandr

So, this isn't a particulary helpful answer.

I am asking these questions because I am curious and also because there seems to be a lot of debate about the revision of the liturgy on this forum. There are some people who seem really upset, a few who seem happy, and many who seem to fall somewhere in between. There also seem to be a group of people who are not pleased with their bishops at the moment, though I haven't completely figured out why as of yet. Trying to waid through forums in order find answers to these questions is a daunting task. You have to filter out a lot of unrelated postings, comments, opinions, and then interpret and analyze what is left and hopefully come to a meaningful conclusion. I am attempting to get to these conclusions by slightly more direct route.

Answers like this don't help me at all.
Bruno

I'm sorry Bruno. I was using your very perceptive observation as an example. As someone new to the Forum, I should not have used your question for that purpose. I will attempt to answer your question in a nutshell. There is an effort to change the language and the music of the Divine Liturgy, the core of Christianity. As you have observed, there are a few who favor this, whilst most oppose it. It all boils down to Tradition, which is something that the west has, to a greater or lesser degree, lost. Tradition is the vehicle, the mechanism by which the faith is preserved. Time out of mind, this is the way things were done. You will notice, that during Liturgy, the priest will intone "The doors, the doors". This is a call to bar the doors against the Roman Legions. Do we fear that in 21st century America? NO, but it is part of tradition that has been handed down to us from the earliest days of the Church. The proposed changes to the services, include questionable, nay, incorrect translations of the original languages, inclusive languages, changes to the music, etc, for what reason? THEY WON'T TELL US!!! It has been my personal experience that when you water down the tradition, an inevitable watering down of the faith occurs. Is the Roman Church in better shape for abandoning Her traditions after the second Vatican council? But there are those who want to follow in that same path. The BC Church is having problems with decreased membership and Church closings, yet money that could be spent on evangelization is being squandered on changes that 1. are unneccesary, 2. are unwanted by the faithful and 3. incorrect.

I hope that helps.

Alexandr

My advice would be to wait until the revised Liturgy is actually revealed, then judge it based on how it's promulgated in your own parish.

That's not as breathtakingly apocalyptic as others will advise, but you have to admit it's a lot less stressful.

Also a lot less embarrassing if/when the changes turn out to be way less dramatic/traumatic than predicted.

I think the doors were closed to stop catechumens, energumens, heretics, Jews, and pagans from participating to the most sacred part of the liturgy, the anaphora. A Roman legion could kick a church door open in no time.
Bruno, I'm reading Fr. Serge Keleher's book to understand what's wrong with this revision.

Please enjoy the book. I particularly recommend the Exordium (which I myself did not write) at the very beginning - it stresses the importance of our liturgical continuity and obliquely makes the point that often it is precisely the element which we do not fully understand that we need urgently.

Fr. Serge

I agree. Well said.

-- John