Forty two years ago, a major change was made to our liturgy, did we have a say in it? How many people know who was on the commision then? Does anybody remember when the changes were promulgated? It helps that then, we did not have the internet to hyper rapidly speed news, opinions, and counter opinions into households and parishes within the Metropolia of Pittsburgh.

Today we see a sad recurrence of distrust within the Metropolia tearing our ailing church apart. In this sub forum,The Revised Divine Liturgy there has been a strong anti IEMC/IELC/MCI sentiment shown toward any pro IEMC/IELC/MCI posts. Two stubborn divergent camps have formed, with a lack of charity growing each day as the debate grows more personal.

Have we forgotton the painful experiences of our past? No. But we seem to repeat them nonetheless. While posters on both side of the issue make claim and counter claim, watchers from many churches, Catholic and Orthodox, look on in amazement as we tear each other apart verbally, rather than build each other up. Sadly there have been a number of priests caught up in both sides of this debate who have showed a lack of charity at times. I do not use the word lightly given that I too have been sometimes less than charitable in my posts, and have been admonished for it by the admin.

One side claims our liturgy never changes. The other counters that it has always changed over the centuries. Both sides are correct.

I used to enjoy browsing byzcath.org before The Revised Divine Liturgy forum appeared.

Two posts caught my attention to this:

and by Admin:
After valiantly making his point time and again amid the animosty shown toward his knowledge by some members of the forum, I feel Jeff certainly owes me no apology as a member of the forum, unless you feel that I am not part of the "entire Forum community". There is great frustration on all sides of an issue that lacks clear resolution from our heirarchs who should be leading our church.

Even when any liturgical and music changes are promulgated there is always the possibility of further change. If there weren't a possibility of change, there wouldn't/couldn't have been any changes implemented ever in the past. Is our Liturgy exactly(as in identical in every word action and note) the same as was celebrated 100 years ago?500 years? 40 years?

My worthless use of bytes on the internet,

Steve
[I hear the crickets chirping already]

Steve Petach writes that:

I plead guilty to a strong sentiment against the use of those ghastly sets of initials to refer to anything to do with the Church!

Fr. Serge

Are you referring to the Liturgikon - or that dreadful little tan paperback book with the butchered liturgy text and rubrics that came out in '65? Would that the Net would have been in place to show everyone how far the actual implemented Liturgy back then diverged from the Ordo (which is more than 42 years old) and the Liturgikon which was only printed a year prior.
FDD

Friends,

I have no animosity toward anyone on any side of this issue. I do understand that the issues discussed have far reaching potential to help or harm the Church. I do know that we do indeed pray our theology. Yet, I don't find myself developing any anamous.

I am sad that we did not have an open conference on this issue within the context of evangelization. Sadly, we did not. Perhaps this will be another nail in our coffins as a distinct Church. Perhaps not. It is a missed opportunity but maybe it just means that God has other plans.

CDL

Dear Steve,

While I accept your perception of the present situation in which we find ourselves, I do hope that you have overstated the matter a little?

Perhaps I am naive, but I do not really see that there are "stubborn divergent camps" with a growing lack of charity?

I do accept that there is a difference of opinion, and that people hold strong opinions too! I have my opinions, and I presume you have yours, and others who have posted here have theirs. But, I feel no lack of charity for you, or for others, because we disagree. I hope you feel similar sentiments of good will and the positive view that other people hold a similar positive view?

With that as a presumption, yes, I feel it is quite legitimate that we disagree, and this can be done within the bounds of charity. Disagreement does not "tear the Church apart". But it might be undermined by an absence of the use of our reasoning faculty. As Archbishop Chaput has recently written:

"God gives his people a conscience, brain, and spine, and we're supposed to use all three." (First Things, October '06, p. 9.)

As a Church, can't we discuss, debate, and even dispute, within our holy communion? How are we to actually discern the good, if we cannot weigh the alternatives and test the spirits? I am not advocating the "Fox News" model of fairness, which places two opposing viewpoints on two opposite sides of the table to "slug out" their differences. But is that the only model for academic discussion available to us?

Let us step back from the false idea, that if I disagree with someone, I hate them. It is not true, and it can stifle even reasonable discussion, which also would not serve our Church.

For what it is worth, I think that this whole question of the new translation, and new interpretation (or old interpretation if you prefer) of the chant, is really merely an occasion for an old debate to surface again. It is not so much about how many notes can comfortably dance on the head of an English syllable (though I have an opinion about that too), as much as it is about our "growing pains" as a Church, adjusting to and confronting a culture, language, and age in which the whole idea of "Church" is counter-cultural and inevitably finds the language of ecclesiology foreign by nature. I don't fear the debate, but I might hope that it can be appreciated for what it is. Are we not a reasonable Church, having a reasonable discussion, about a reasonable matter that affects us all?

That being said, I have opinions (known to many or most of you). But I hope that does not disqualify me from loving you all, and valuing your work and contribution.

the unworthy,
Elias

To second Father Elias's point, it is also true that many people - perhaps even most people - when it comes to a highly complicated issue, do not fit neatly into "camps" anyway, but are apt to agree with one position on one part of the issue, a second position on another part of the isse, and a third position on a different part of the issue.

Fr. Serge

I agree with Fr. Serge's discomfort with "those ghastly sets of initials to refer to anything to do with the Church!"

Those who have an informed Roman Catholc background have often been repulsed by the initials ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) which was responsible for such poor translations of the Roman Liturgy that it has had to be thouroughly revised. Thank God that the ICEL was re-vamped and they have followed stricter guidelines. They have been told that they are supposed to be translators not renovators of the liturgy.

So when I hear the initials IELC (inter eparchial liturgical commission) which resembles the infamous old ICEL, it also makes me cringe.

For an article on the history of the Roman Catholic ICEL see: http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2855

The revised Divine Liturgy may actually be a blessing in disguise for me and my family as it will be the final nudge I need to enter the Orthodox Church.

... from whence we came. Godspeed Recluse.

I wonder if our bishops are reading this and what their thoughts are?