I've been thinking of this for some time now - years actually and it goes along to some extent with comments made on the Forum. And perhaps it is also fleeting fancy.

But it centers on something that has been a spiritual and liturgical cornerstone of Eastern Christianity - the idea of economia - and how it has been applied throughout the liturgical history of the entire Church.

For Greek Catholics of the "Ruthenian Rescension", we have particularized ourselves to the near point of oblivion. Jurisdiction this, Eparchy that. One seminary here with five guys, one over there with ten. Both eating up valuable and dwindling financial resources.

Let's face it - the historical reasons for the creation of the separate BCC and UGCC have not been real reasons for generations, except for the xenophobes and nationalists who cannot see Christ because the flags are in the way - and it exists both ways.

Sure, every church has the right to do what it wants, and that will always happen, Catholic or Orthodox - so we plod ahead with something some say is seemingly farther out of touch not only within our own Churches of the Ruthenian Rescension, but possibly even with Orthodxy. Those primarily responsible for its development may or may not care, we really haven't heard.

The difficulties are so obvious, the questions so many: Why implement something like this New Liturgy at a time when parishes are being closed (anyone check Passaic lately)? Why create new division? This has already happened -i.e. comments on this Fourm, and the New Liturgy is not even close to promulgated. Why do this when no substantive reasons for the creation of a "New Liturgy" have ever been posited? And why do we - not only the faithful but in my case the clergy - be deprived of the opportunity to try and implement what Rome wanted us to implement? What good is "consistency" if it creates undue hardship, dissension, division, and eventually loss from the Church?

While very frustrated, I posit it is time to step back from the whole thing, and consider larger issues of future growth and evangelical impact. Do we walk and work together as Catholic Churches with a relevant Gospel message? Do we even care? If the Liturgy is the Source and Summit (I definitely believe it is) then we must care. Is St. Prosper of Aquitane right? I think he definitely is.

Now the tangent. Surely the idea of a unified English translation is fantasy, just as it is with the Orthodox.

But what about this scenario: In the Roman Church, the priest is able to pick which Eucharistic prayer he desires (within general guidelines).

When we think about how uniform we consider the Roman Church to be liturgically, that is amazing economia - the Priest selecting which Eucharistic Prayer he wishes to use. The Ethiopians have something like 15 anaphorae.

What if any priest of the "Ruthenian Rescension" be given economia to use whatever APPROVED English edition of the Liturgikon he wishes? A priest wants to use 1965 Pittsburgh, fine. 1987/88 UGCC, fine. UGCC or BCC "Parma Editions", fine. When and if the New Liturgy gets approved in whatever form, fine. Throw them all into the pool for potential use as the "Ruthenian Rescension". Unfortunately I don't see that economia currently present, and fear it limited even more in the future with the "New Liturgy" at least in the BCC. I know of some UGCC English missions using BCC stuff.

Let the clergy "on the ground" in the specific parochial setting have the economia to implement an approved Liturgikon of "Ruthenian Rescension" based on their own local pastoral needs and possibilities - within the larger family of the "Ruthenian Rescension".

Are we a family? Or just a bunch of squabbling stepchildren? Where has "consistency" gotten us so far? Do we believe in the "One" part of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? Under my scenario - if something doesn't work, nor is received well by the Church, there are OPTIONS within the "Ruthenian Rescension" that could be taken.

To me that is the key, that we not be deprived of that economia which has been such a cornerstone of our Eastern Christian ethos.
While this does not get us to a single unified text, it does give us a single "universe" of "Ruthenian" texts and usages of the Liturgikon that are in use.

Those that are successful will survive. Those not won't. Attrition has always occurred with liturgical usages throughout the ages. Every Catholic parish should have the opportunity to use what Rome guaranteed us and allowed us. Let these various riches all be equally accessible and usable by the entire Ruthenian Church.

Perhaps this may eventually greater unite the Ruthenian Rescension to a certain degree in terms of our greater mission to take the Mysteries of Christ out to the world, to allow our liturgy to be the holy Source and Summit. What works will survive and flourish, and what communities thrive will become apparent. Economia in the form of the ability to use at the local level that which the priest determines to fit the communal possibilities and dynamics. Just give it a chance, and give us economia to see what works.

I understand fully this is fantasy, and currently only exists in my head, but wanted to at least (poorly and partially) try to elucidate what is on my mind. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.
FDD

Hi,

Your idea is interesting, although not exactly a parallel with what happens with the Roman Missal.

A Roman priest cannot freely choose to use the 1962 (Pian) Missal, just out of the blue.

The available choices are all to be taken from a single book.

Likewise, if the priest is, by indult, saying Mass according to the old 1962 Missal, then no elements from the current Missal should be introduced into the celebration.

Now, the 4 major Eucharistic prayers, together with the alternate ones with Reconciliation themes and for Masses with Children are quite different from each other, they are not just different renditions of the same original text.

Of course, they all follow the same general structure.

And even then, the choice is not 100% arbitrary. There are some guidelines.

For instance, Eucharistic Prayer III is considered more suitable for Sundays than for weekdays.

Eucharistic Prayer IV forms an integral unity with its preface, so it should not be chosen when a proper preface is prescribed (such as Advent, Lent and Solemnities).

Eucharistic Prayer II also comes it its own preface, but this is often substituted, which strictly speaking is not entirely correct, but it is not deemed as a grave abuse.

Shalom,
Memo

Perhaps you missed my statement above:

The intent was not to completely liken the two situations, which is not possible as indeed they are different. My point was to point out that the priest is free, which he is, to economically choose the Eucharistic Prayer within general guidelines. The point was a more general one to demonstrate that the priest has leeway in the choice of the Eucharistic Prayer. The idea of the local freedom of the priest. I assist often at daily RC Mass in my city and well understand the usage. And yes, the priest is not free to use the 1962 at all without specific indult. God bless.
FDD

I would join Fr. Deacon Randolph in recommending freedom for priests to use the particular translation and/or rubrics they are comfortable with within reason.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon makes an interesting proposal.

The truth is that some of our parishes are farther along in recovering an authentic Eastern Chirstian identity than others. Some parishes simply have no interest in being fully Eastern Christian. They truly have no vision for anything fuller than what they have today.

What will become of those parishes ready to recover more of their authentic Eastern Christian identity? I'm thinking of parishes that are ready to take the leap to something more along the lines of St. Elias near Toronto.

A few of our parishes are surely ready for a fuller liturgical life and a complete celebration of the Ruthenian recension.

Dear Father Deacon,

What you propose in general is not workable in many ways and for many reasons not the least of which is the nature and inclinations of the priest in any given diocese, in any give parish, at any given time, and the people as well, but that being said, I don't think your idea should be ignored. People need to be led. Leaders need to be led. Strengthening the brethern is the hallmark of catholic hierarchy, but in actual fact, actual practice it is a spiral and not an arrow shot from the top.

Make the regulatory connections too loose and the feedback falters and eventually fails. We've seen it happen in the Latin rite in the United States in the 20th Century. The very patrimony who used Rome to club the eastern Churches into submission on a whim, has subsequently imploded into an evil that has hardly seen its rival in the Church.

I do not know our liturgical regulations well enough to make particular comment, but I do not think that economia is the appropriate model for what you suggest. I don't think that would be needed for the Byzantine Metropolia, in particular.

All the bishops would have to do would be legislate whatever protocol would be most beneficial. Besides which, economia is traditionally exercised on a case by case basis and what your vision suggests is an overall set of liturgical protocols for the Metropolia.

Also I simply cannot envision five or more iterations of the same liturgy laid out for "selection" by each parish. That does something to me inside that says 'this just ain't catholic!'

It is one thing to have some words or chant differences from parish to parish. That is something organic to the eastern ethos and does not negate the standard, but mediates it for the needs of that moment in that parish church at that liturgy. But to legislate or regulate that diversity of praxis and prose would be quite an un-catholic disaster.

There's more but before your eyes glaze over I'll offer this for your reflection and response.

Eli

I have been thinking about Diak’s post and wanted to respond but just now have a few minutes to actually do so. I find his “think outside the holupki” method of thinking refreshing.

We’ve discussed this before. Maybe it’s time to revisit this issue in a separate thread. I strongly desire all of the Byzantine / Greek Catholic Churches in America to start laying foundation for eventual merging into a single ecclesial structure. We can’t solve the issues of total independence or some affiliation with either the Melkite or Ukrainian patriarchates but we certainly begin to act as one Church. It would be great for starters to set common policy and for our bishops to issue common statements on everything from the Fast to the moral issues facing our nation. We’ve had a lengthy discussion on Liturgy. Maybe now is the time to work together on this issue to produce common translations? I don’t think it is a fantasy, particularly if someone gets Rome involved to push the issue.

I am a great one for stability and was not sure about this at first reading. But after thinking about it a good deal there is no real reason to object to it. As long as nothing is forced here, I support the idea of allowing an individual priest to use a different edition of an approved Liturgicon. I am a firm believe in that what is best will rise to the top and gain popularity. Something that is good will be adopted because it is good. Something that is not so good will fall to the side even if mandated.

My only caution here is that people prefer stability, so no change should be made without a true effort at catechesis. Experimentation by the priest with different Liturgicons (while leaving the people to use their usual texts and musical settings) should be pretty easy to accomplish. Experimentation with new texts and music for the people can be done but would take a bit more preparation.

I like to think that the very fact that we do squabble a bit is proof that we still are a family. If we didn’t squabble and each went our own way without caring that would (to me) suggest that we were no longer family. One has to care enough to squabble!

--

I have a great story that is not unrelated to the topic of allowing different Liturgicons, one that involves Father Serge. About 11 or 12 years ago he happened to be in town for (new calendar) Pascha and was invited by our pastor to celebrate the 10:30 Divine Liturgy on Easter Sunday (we had already had a packed house for Matins and the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy late Saturday night and then a full house for the 8:00 AM Divine Liturgy). My guess is that Father Serge used the 1964/1965 Ruthenian Liturgicon on the holy table. But the Great Entrance and a few other parts he did from memory using the OCA text, mentioning “Orthodox Christians” and using “ages of ages”. No one batted an eye. The funny part happened afterwards, during the munching of the baskets. One older parishioner asked: “Who was that Orthodox priest who celebrated this morning?”

I remember that Sunday (it was indeed new-calendar Easter and I had served at midnight at St Michael's in New York, then got the first morning flight from La Guardia to DC). I would have used whatever service-book was set out for me.

BUT the price of using a vernacular language is that the priest or deacon over the course of a few decades will inevitably develop a few linguistic idiosyncracies - living languages do that - and after being up all night, I would have actually read from the service-book only if/when it was necessary. At the Great Entrance, it was impossible to carry the Holy Gifts and a service-book so I had to do the commemorations from memory. I was naturally concentrating to offer the correct commemorations of the hierarchy and the civil authorities, since I was visiting both the USA in general and that parish in particular and did not want to cause confusion by commemorating either an inappropriate hierarch or an inappropriate civil authority. The remainder of the commemoration just went as it went. But since I certainly commemorated the Pope, the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh, and the Bishop of Passaic, I was more than a little puzzled that somebody thought I was an Orthodox priest - not offended, just puzzled.

Fr. Serge

I suspect it was the use of “ages of ages” instead of the typical “forever” at the end of one or more doxologies. And maybe the word “Orthodox” in the Great Entrance. This seems to be an unnecessary differentiation from the Orthodox. I’d switch the official texts to “ages of ages” but allow the priests to option to use either, and training the next generation of priests to use “ages of ages”.

This reminds me of another story. Back around the same year on “Picnic Sunday” (a major feast day in our parish!) one middle aged woman went up for the festal anointing at the end of the Divine Liturgy. She said to the pastor, “Father John, Greetings from St. Nicholas!” And, being a New Jerseyite he responded “Oh! You’re from my home parish in Roebling! Welcome!” And the lady said, “No! We’re here from St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington. We’ve come for Liturgy and the Picnic.”

That was good of your to slip in the Metropolitan he does not get mentioned in Australia unless he is present. Only the Bishop, the Patriarch and the Pope. Poor old Metropolitan Denis of Melbourne is someone I suspect we hide like a mad uncle.

HRM does the ages and ages as well.

Did you refer to the Metropolitan as his Beatitude that would have confused them even more.

Dear Father Deacon,

I have been thinking about this suggestion, and at first I find it quite attractive. I like liberty where conformity is not needed or obviously required. The suggestion also has the merit of assisting those who might find their own conscience speaking to them on these issues.

Someone may, as a matter of conscience, feel that justice and equality of rights, demands the use of inclusive language. Another might feel that their conscience demands that they use the full liturgy with a more traditional English. So, being able to choose which liturgicon to use would be very convenient.

However, the problem I see, is that the choice would probably fall to the celebrating priest, and his own conscience or personal choice would be the deciding one. The inevitable problem comes, if my priest chooses a liturgy I don't like (inclusive language, or traditional language). I will feel hurt or consider that my own conscience was offended or excluded. What if a new pastor comes, and reverses the preferences of the old pastor. Consternation and crisis will follow.

While it is charity, and the love of God, that unites us perfectly, in practice, it is the book we use for worship that unites our parishes, and forms our prayer together.

I think the Church is wise and prudent when it recommends a single English translation of a liturgical text in a geographical area and ritual tradition.

Divergent texts will mean disunity, and in the end, different and divided Churches.

I have heard more than one bishop, and more than one eminent theologian call for us all to redouble our efforts at producing a common translation of the Liturgy. The time is right for this now, and we must not postpone it, or make excuses why it will be difficult. I think we need to hear Rome on this issue, and heed the prophets who are challenging us to a common text.

the unworthy,
Elias