I had a few hours tonight, so I opened up Fr. Keleher's book to the appendix, where he has the new liturgy (Oct 2004 edition) printed. I started typing, and managed to get 10 of the 40 pages done. You can download it here.

The text should be exact, unless I mistyped something. I have included "-1-" and "-2-" and so on to indicate the pagination of the original version.

I won't be able to enter any more of it for a few days, since I will have company at my house. If any of the rest of you who have access to the new liturgy would like to aid my project, feel free. Just start typing on page 11 or later, and let me know what you are doing so we don't duplicate work.

Thank you! Perhaps we can now gain some perspective on this issue.

CDL

The more people are able to have access to this text, the better - before it is foisted upon the Church. But at the risk of advertising my own work, might I suggest obtaining copies of my book and encouraging wide distribution? Nervy of me - but as Father David has remarked, I do not lack for chutzpah!

Serge Keleher

Now, where can get a copy of the 1940's Liturgicon we're supposed to be using for comparison?

Dear Fr. Serge,

Of course. I recommend everyone get a copy of your book.

My motivation for typing the liturgy into a word-processor is so that we can have a better discussion of the points raised in your book.

Is the textus receptus of the Greek available online anywhere? I have a Greek-German text, but it might be useful for others on the forum.

By the way, anyone wish to help me with the typing? As I said above, I am unlikely to be able to continue until Monday night.

I'd be glad to do so but I don't yet have the text. Perhaps I can get one this week but it won't help with this project. Sorry.

CDL

Good grief, here's the link: Greek, Slavonic, English, Study texts with links to discussions here, ...

Links to online copies of the 1942 Ruthenian recension Liturgikon, and the 1965 English translation (the one for which the text was used while the rubrics were tacitly ignored) can be found here .

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

So where does one order Fr. Serge's book?

My enquiring mind would like to know.

John

John,

Look in the Books Forum. All the information is there.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Is there a website that has the English version of the Divine Liturgy used by ACROD?

For Apotheoun:

http://aggreen.net/liturgics/C-R_Div_Lit.html

Dave

Is the chanting of the Beatitudes at the third antiphon from our Pre-Nikonian days?

I see that they are in the 1942 Liturgikon. Why have they disappeard from the Ruthenian Church?

The Beatitudes are chanted IN PLACE of the Third Antiphon, whenever the Typical Psalms are used in place of the First and Second Antiphons. (The Ruthenians use the (Paschal) antiphons year round, where the Russians use the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes more commonly.)

The Beatitudes were omitted from most previous people's editions of the Pittsburgh liturgy; they are restored in the proposed People's Book being discussed in this forum.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Cool. Thanks Jeff.

John and Jeff,

Imagine the good the commission could do by simply bringing this out into the open. I don't get the insistence upon secrecy at this point.

CDL

The whole liturgy is completely scanned as a pdf. It's a bit big (4.8Meg), but legible.

Download it here:

New Liturgy, Complete.

Thank you!

Karl,

You have done us all a great service. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon the outcome, I must now go to confession for the envy I sense toward your superior technical skills.

The concluding remarks by Father Serge ought to refocus us all.

"If the criticisms of the 12 ZOctober, 2004 draft lead to a greater consideration of the need for celebration and appreciation of the existing official liturgy, of the need for a serious translation of the Septuagint Psalter, of the need to involve as many people as possible in preparing liturgical translations, of the need to be patient with the scholars who must produce serious works on these matters and the need for education of every level, the Church will profit abundantly. If anyone feels that what I have written has offended him, I ask forgiveness for the sake of Christ." (Father Serge Keleher, Chapter 13)

I wonder if the differing approaches toward this translation has anything in part to do with what we may have learned from Luke 15:11-32? Just a thought.

CDL

Okay, I've read it. There certainly seem to be some things in it that deserve a full discussion, and there are some things that I really don't like (e.g. "us all" for "mankind" or "humankind"; "of the true faith" for "orthodox"; "for us and for our salvation" for "for us men..."). However, I think we can all agree on the following:

(1) There is no heresy or "radical feminism" in this translation.

(2) There is no "new Liturgy". This text is not very different from the text of the Divine Liturgy as actually celebrated
in our parishes at present, at least in the Eparchy of Parma.

(3) This text is incomparably better than the currently-used ICEL translation of the Roman Mass, and it seems to me that it's considerably better than the English translation used in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the US.

So, now that we've read it, can we all please calm down?

I would like everyone to note that the ACROD Liturgy has no Little Litanies (I wonder if Fr. David will be blamed for this), no Litanies of the Catechumens or Faithful, no Litany of Offering after the Great Entrance. The 1st and 2nd Antiphons are one verse. There are no rubrics concerning opening or closing the Holy Doors.

For all the complaints about the new Liturgy it is awfully close to ACROD's version. I have heard no complaining from ACROD members either.

Since we are to differ as little as possible from our Orthodox counterpart, (which is ACORD not OCA) perhaps we should simply conform our use to theirs? This shouldn't be a problem since it has been common Carpatho-Rusyn usage for both for many years.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Mr."Robusto"!
Your statement that the socalled
new Liturgy is "considerably better than the English translation used in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the US" is unacceptable.
It is NOT better.
We love our Liturgy just as it is, so lay off! Instead of the Ruthenian Catholic hierarchy working in concert with other Eastern Byzantine Catholic churches, they go off on their own as if they own the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are truly working together towards unity, but this new translation by the Ruthenian hierarchy just distances their church further from their Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.
What a shame!
Question: Why are so many Ruthenian Catholics so unhappy with the goings on? Hmmmm!

Pavloosh,

The Ukrainians have produced their own English translations of the Divine Liturgy without consulting anyone else, as have the Melkites, so lets stop the: "Rusyns are going off on their own" accusation.

As to distancing ourselves, the only ones we have to immediately worry about distancing ourselves from are ACROD, which as I have shown above we have not done.

As to whether one English transaltion is better than another, I suppose that is a matter of opinion but it is also conditioned by what chant system one is employing. One English translation may sound better in Prostopinije another in Samoylka, and yet both be acceptable translations.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

One thing about ACROD is that they broke from us, and they also retained a lot of Latinizations
which they are in the process of getting rid of. I am told that, for years, the EP has been pushing on them to "Orthodoxize", and they have been very slow to do so. In my area, there is a parish of ACROD that JUST RECENTLY installed an iconstasis, and after a lot of in-parish fighting. A Greek Catholic acquaintance of mine, who hates icon screens, and whose mother's family belongs to that ACROD parish, once told me "the Orthodox are right". I said "about what?" He said: "they don't have those ugly icon screens". His point of reference was that parish. In many ways, we mirror them, and they mirror us. If we strictly use them, and they strictly use us, as liturgical points of reference, who is going to make any progress? Perhaps, when the time is right, we should have consultations with ACROD on how to jointly "fix" liturgical celebrations so as to conform to authentic Carpatho-Rusyn usages. But, consultaions with other jurisdictions would have to be done, IMO, i.e. the UGCC-the Ruthenian Rescencion also applies to them; and GOARCH, since Ruthenian usage is more Greek-rooted than Russian. Just my opinion.

Dn. Robert

Fr. Deacon Robert,

Certainly ACROD had some leftover Latinization, but their Liturgy cited does not have any. Abbreviation does not equal Latinization. When priests from Presov celebrated Liturgy in my parish from the Slavonic book according to what I would call the common use they dropped exactly the same Litanies as is common for ACROD and the Metropolia.

The abbreviations common to us and ACROD have been in use a long time and can be considered authentic Carpatho-Rusyn usage.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I recently discussed these points with an ACROD priest. I asked him about the current ACROD text. He replied:

I asked if parishes have the option of doing fuller psalm verses or other litanies?

I asked if there a move to do that in some areas?

I next asked: do some parishes take the priestly prayers (particularly the Anaphora) outloud? A side point: do any of the ACROD parishes use pre-cut pieces instead of prosphora loaves?

He also noted:

I think the ability in ACROD parishes to do fuller liturgies (with more litanies and antiphons) if desired is something that I think we should retain as well. I think we also should note that there is a possibility that the ACROD diocese will turn more traditional in the future.

Dn. Lance,

It depends upon what you mean by a long time. Someone gave me tapes of both an ACROD parish and a parish of our Church from the 1950's a few years ago. In both cases, some of those litanies which we don't take now were being taken (I don't want to create a distorted picture. Other neighboring parishes, at that time, were already doing the abbreviations). I'm not fanatical on the issue. I can probably "live with" what is to be promulgated shortly (although I don't see any need for the "inclusive" language. "Mankind" is a generic term, and everyone knows that, and there is no great outcry to do away with it- except in the outside world-primarily from enemies of the Church. Some of the other language I find to be grating, such as "whom God loves"-why not say "God-beloved"? But, I have also heard that they've gone back to "God-loving" in the latest edition of the revision), but I'm convinced that the spirit which drove the abbreviations was one of keeping the Liturgy shortened so as to not lose people to the Latin Rite. At least, I've been told this by several of our older priests. My attitude on that is that if someone wants to leave our Church because the Liturgy is now 5 or 10 minutes longer, and that takes too much of a chunk out of their lives, and they are willing to put up with bad church music, poor liturgical translations, bevies of female Eucharistic Ministers and Altar Girls, clapping in Church, etc., maybe it's just as well. Chances are, we will pick up others to replace them who want to be in Church, and for the right reasons. Again, just my humble opinion.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

BTW,

Good job, Pseudo-Athanasius. I read the whole thing over lunch. At least now we have somewhat of a grasp as to what it is we are talking about.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Are you certain of this Father Deacon Lance?

He is absolutely correct on that. Two local UGCC parishes in my area use two different translations, neither of which bear much, if any, resemblance to our translations.

Dn. Robert

Well there is the Stamford translation 1954, the Basilian translation unsure of year, Synodal transaltion 1988, St. Josaphat of Parma translation 1996. I am unaware of any consultation with the Rusyns or Melkites taken in any of the above.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Maybe it's time we started trying to work together?

Nec

I think I know the priest of whom you are speaking. Regardless, I don't think the above statement would reflect a common opinion in ACROD (let alone any other jurisdiction).

Andrew

Rilian,

You are probably correct. I think future moves in ACROD are likely to be more conservative in nature. I think that is something we should take into account.

At the very least we should allow for this sort of development in our Metropolia. If younger priests want to have fuller liturgies, no pre-cut pieces, use "orthodox" insted of "of the true faith" give them the option.

Nec

Dear Michael Robusto,

I have read it, and find many curious choices of translation that seem to reflect an ideology. I will post examples in the next few days, and have already posted one (the dropping of the prayers for the armed forces). Lots of these translation choices are not evident to the casual reader.

I recommend you get Fr. Serge's book.

I downloaded Pseudo-Athanasius' scan of the new translation, and e-mailed it to a good friend who has some background in Byzantine things. Here are his comments:

Thank you.I happen to have a copy of the book written by Serge Kelleher.
It is, indeed, a wonderful book.
Now, I can have the aggravation of reading the complete translation he is criticizing.

Understand this (I find that many people who are going on Byzantine Forum and are following the argument between Petrus and Kelleher miss this point) : Serge Kelleher served for decades in the Ukrainian Eparchy of Toronto where the abbreviated Liturgy (apporved by the Ukrainian Catholic Synod of Bishops in 1963) was celebrated as the norm. He is not saying that Ruthenians should celebrate a full Liturgy or that they, as a "Particular Church" do not have the right to publish pew books differently.
But, it has always been the case that when one "translates" Liturgical services, the entire service is translated. What Petrus has done (and surprisingly it has been done with Rome's approval - in 1963 Rome instructed the Ukrainian Synod that while they had the right to pastorally abbreviate the Liturgy - they could not prohibit a priest or a parish from celebrating the entire Liturgy - now, they've gone and permitted the publication of a translation of part of the Liturgy claiming that this is the Ruthenian Liturgy).
While many of Petrus' explanations on how the Liturgy was translated seems to take consideration of the standard norms of Liturgical translation, his practice does not show that. If this new book goes through, the Pittsburgh Metropolia will have formed a new Rite.


This should stoke the flames a little more!

Dn. Robert

Slight correction - the Eparchy of Toronto (which just celebrated its golden jubilee the other day) does not require the use of the abbreviations authorized by the Fourth Synod under Patriarch Joseph; the Eparchy permits those abbreviations. There are still holdouts who do the full Liturgy.

In Ukraine, the full Liturgy is still in general use. Here in Dublin, we use the full Liturgy; when Ukrainian bishops come they have never criticized us for it.

That said, the Fourth Synod's abbreviations are relatively modest. They do not resemble what the present Ruthenian recasting is aimed at.

Thank you for your kind words about my book. It's nice to be appreciated!

(Archimandrite) Serge

Dear Father Deacon Robert:

I think you are right about flames.

Your friend writes:
My question to your friend: who is Petrus, and what is he doing?

My question to your friend: What idea of "rite" informs this claim?

What is he saying about our rights as a Particular, sui juris church?

I'd sure like to know more about this! Does anyone have access to the document which says this?

Nec

Not only do I not have access to such a document, I am reluctant to believe that it exists. In 1963 Rome did not recognize the existence of a Ukrainian Synod. Moreover, the abbreviations were not authorized until 1966. Patriarch Joseph stated clearly that all the Bishops had decreed that it was permitted to abbreviate the Divine Liturgy, but it was certainly not required and there were quite significant voices reaised against the idea.

The abbreviations are quite simply described:

It is permitted to omit the first small synapte and the second antiphon, going straight from the First Antiphon to Glory . . . Both now . . . Only-Begotten Son . . .

It is permitted to omit the petitions for the Catechumens.

It is permitted to omit the first Aitesis, so that the Plerotika themselves are sung as usual, followed by the Ecphonesis of the Prayer of the Proskomede

That is the sum total of the authorized abbreviations. I cannot even remember the last time that I was involved in a service during which these abbreviations were used.

Prayer-Books for the faithful and service books for the clergy continued to be printed with the full text of the Divine Liturgy. I did a bi-lingual one here (Irish-Ukrainian) for the faithful in Ireland, and no one has even discussed the obvious use of the full text.

Fr. Serge

Thank you, Archimandrite Serge, for explaining this. Though I wonder if perhaps there was some sort of instruction from Rome on this at one point.

At any rate, wouldn't this be a better way for our Church? Translate the entire Liturgy (though I'd like to see us try to work with other Eastern Christian Churches in doing so) and then allow for some pastoral abbreviation?

Nec

Nec:

You may be intersted in this exchange 08/27/02

StuartK wrote:
Father David responded:

Btw, a better download is available here.

DJS,

Thank you for the link to the draft and for the information from the exchange in 2002.

Re-reading the answer. One scenario might be we would be going from 'it's permitted to abbreviate' to a possible 'it might be permitted to do more'? So, exceptions for a fuller celebration of the Liturgy might be made but might have to be approved?

Just expressing my opinion. I don't like that.

Nec

It depends on the manner of promulgation, and this might be done differently by each Bishop.

The question arises. If exceptions are made and a parish is permitted to do a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, where will they get the approved translation of those parts which are now omitted in the current draft?

Wouldn't it be better to also have those parts translated now so that could be a real possibility?

Nec

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

My surname is not a pseudonym, and it does not come with quotation marks. I got it from my father, who got it from his father, who got it, ultimately, from some distant ancestor whose family immigrated to Avellino from Albania, and who decided he needed an Italian-sounding surname. I use it on this forum not because it's supposed to mean anything to you, but because it's my name.

It has been pointed out previously by ByzKat that additional antiphon verses will be available from the MCI. I am not sure how many - probably three as in the 1965 edition, rather than the full psalm. (This abbreviation is OK, I guess?) Additional prokimenon and Alleluia verses? I am not sure what the proper, unabbreviated number is, but again the MCI may be the source.

To Michael Robusto and all,

It occurs to me (thanks to a private messager) that I should be clearer about what I mean by "ideology." I use the term rather loosely--everyone comes to a text with an ideology, a point of view. Perhaps "point of view" is a better phrase, since it is less loaded. Certainly I don't think Fr. David or the IELC are parts of some evil cabal bent on destroying true worship!

But I do think they translated with a point of view, a view of the liturgy and of language that is problematic. Not heretical or evil, but problematic. For example, I have been trying to understand the rationale for abbreviation in the new liturgy. There is something in that point of view that says that litanies can be omitted (not merely made optional). What's wrong with litanies? I wonder. I'd like to know how the committee decided to translate certain things. Since the committee (with the notable and noble exception of Fr. David) has been silent, there are no answers, no list of principles guiding the translation. That's something I'd like to see. Perhaps it would convince me!

I'm not privy to the internal discussions of the Liturgical Commission, but one of the statements made at the Cantor Institute sessions in which the new liturgy was presented (Professor Thompson obtained the Metropolitan's permission to use the people's text of the proposed Divine Liturgy at last year's MCI; it was distributed for the cantors (some of whom are on this forum) to study, and Father David gave several talks on it) was as follows:

There was an impetus toward providing a text with as few "decision points" and alternatives as possible. (Those familiar with the Roman Liturgy will be aware that, since 1965, a great number of alternative possibilities have been added throughout the Mass.) So rather than, for example, printing certain litanies and verses in small print, implying that they were optional, the proposed People's Book has a SMALLER number of such "branch points" in the Divine Liturgy, making some things required that were once optional, and omitting what is not required, with a FEW exceptions (the Litany of the Catechumens, etc.)

Several people here have said that "whatever is made optional will be omitted". If this is true, then imposing a higher "minimum standard" makes SENSE, but at the cost of leaving in doubt whether a priest or parish may keep an even higher standard.

Myself, I trust our priests more than some posters do here, but pastors certainly need encouragement - because they WILL take complaints from some quarters whenever they add a prayer or litany that was omitted before. In this case, bishops and commission members may need encouragement as well!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Thank you for the link. Sadly, the page cuts off before the end of the liturgy, but I was able to get an idea of the style of worship used in ACROD. Too bad there are no ACROD Churches where I live.

Dear DJS,

Unfortunately, this friend is reluctant to post on this messageboard, but he has background in both UGCC, where he was raised,and initially was being educated for priesthood, and in our Metroplia, where he is a cantor. I can't speak for him, but I'll try to answer your questions as I understand his view.
As to the first question, he appears to see Fr. Petrus as a "mover and shaker" on the IELC.
As to the idea of "rite", I believe he is saying that the new, abbreviated" translation may be approved and viewed as a replacement for the 1941 Old Slavonic edition of the Liturgy, which is a full celebration. Thus, the creation of a new "rite", which abrogates (or obrogates) the present one. As to our "rights" as a sui juris Church, he is saying that, given the existence of an approved rite (the 1941 translation), the sui iuris Church is viewed as having the right to make pastoral abbreviations of the official rite, for pastoral reasons, but that the sui iuris Church may not prohibit a fuller celebration, if a priest or bishop desires to do that. Hope this clarifies. BTW, I'd really like to try and get this person to post here. He has a lot of knowledge, and a lot of contacts in the Catholic and Orhodox worlds.

Dn. Robert

Seems likely. The ACROD parish near me is probably somewhat middle of the road. They have an older ethnic base, but have attracted converts as well which will probably change the dynamic somewhat. They are certainly Eastern, but have maintained some very visible Latinizations.

Personally, I don't view those as optional

Andrew

I’ve seen the exact opposite happen in real life. I’ve known parishes that did not take all the litanies place into their pews a book that contained them. Over time the people started asking the priest “Why don’t we take these here?” Soon they were taking more of them.

A fact of life: The lower you set the standard the less likely anyone is going to reach it.

This is SO TRUE!

It certainly is. I must remember that line and put it to good use!

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

I sincerely hope that your efforts bear fruit in our Metropolia. Thanks for your input.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I'm not the one you need to convince, John. For some reason, many things never change in the Metropolia unless the bishops order it. I don't like it, but it has to be taken into account.

I noted that fewer litanies are marked as optional in the new book than in the old 1965 and 1978 "pew" books, while some were either removed. (In fact, three of the "removed litanies" were not on the old books either.) Several people asked why the litanies were left out of the new books rather than being marked optional. At least one poster opposed to the changes insisted that whatever is marked optional would never be used.

In this context, what the Commission did was logical - to raise the MINIMUM standard. So I tried to pass on the explanation we were given - i.e. that one or more influential members of the hierarchy / commission did not want lots of optional parts in the Liturgikon. I do not particularly agree with the logic, but people in this thread were asking for a reason.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. I know that you are only relating information that you are privy to.

I will disagree that this revision will in any way raise the minimum standard. Why does anyone expect that those priests who ignored earlier liturgical mandates are all of a sudden going to eagerly embrace a new standard (of any type)? Human nature is what it is and people resist change. The older one gets the more likely he is to resist change. It is very unlikely that priests over 65 are going to make any changes whatsoever because they are mandated. A mandate will only work when it is backed up by a legitimate way to enforce it. The only way to enforce any liturgical mandate is to threaten to retire or fire those priests who do not comply. [Of course that will be very easy to do because our seminary is overflowing with men just waiting for ordination who can replace them!]

The only way forward here is to enlist the enthusiasm of the clergy.

Here at work I’m always being sent to management courses that speak about the importance of project ownership and peer reviews (I serve on a number of these types of teams). Those who are part of the development process invest something of themselves into the product. The result is that they care about the product. This generates enthusiasm and people willingly embrace what is going on. Our software development, test, documentation and management groups always submit all of their work (and processes) for peer review by other groups (with the peer groups including all levels from subject matter expert to novice). Getting outside input from uninvolved people helps detect a lot of mistakes that would not have been caught by those involved (no one can proof his own work) as well as helping the group to realize that there is a lot going on outside their day-to-day world that they should pay attention to. The final result is always a better quality product and enthusiam for it.

Life in the Church is really not much different. He who wishes to accomplish change must first enlist the enthusiasm of those he believes need to change. Without this enthusiasm change will be extremely difficult – if not impossible – to accomplish. From what I have seen over the past number of years the vast majority of the clergy are opposed to the proposed revisions to the Liturgy (the Forum discussions are mild compared to some of the discussions among the clergy I’ve heard about). When you’ve managed to unite both the Vostochnicks and the Latinizers against the Revision there is little chance it can be accomplished.

Where does he get the idea of an abrogation of the 1941 Slavonic edition? (cf the note of Father Petras that I psoted for Nec.) I still don't understand his idea of "rite". Does he consider Melkites etc. to be Byzantine rite? Does he mean recension rather than rite?

I would like for someone who has knowledge of the canon law books for the Eastern churches to comment on the matters of our rights as a sui juris church.

Dave:

Thanks for the link to the ACROD liturgical text!

The language has many differences from the 1988 pew book that I have. I wonder: were these changes met with resistance?

I note the antiphons are taken as in our new edition, with the possible exception that if the parish does not take the Beatitudes, there is no third psalm-antiphon. Is this just a permissible abbreviation - do some/many/most parishes take three verses? Or all of the verses of the psalm?

Ditto on the omitted litanies.

Can you comment on whether this edition has the status of a pew book or a liturgikon? Is this considered a departure from the Byzantine rite?

Finally, I notice that, as in the 1988 pew book, uses "children of God" in the Beatitudes. Do you know how this came about?

djs

Actually, as your post reveals, it is different. What is the analog of the factions that you mention - the vostochniks and the Latinizers? If there are factions who are united in opposition, but for very different reasons, what makes you think that broader participation would have led to a product of which both factions would take ownership?

Administrator: I am sorry to hear about the tenor of discussion among the clergy - whatever informs your opinion of it. But it helps put in perspective the balance struck by the IELC. Since you think our clergy won't obey this call for this minimum standard, why would they heed a call for a higher minimal standard? What is your objective?

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I am left wondering - how many antiphon verses constitutes an acceptable abbreviation versus butchery? And prokimenon verses? And alleluia verses? Do you call the ACROD liturgy a butchery? What about Greek Orthodox?

Maybe the idea of a Carptho-Rusyn rescension, mentioned on another thread, is one to discuss. The new edition and the ACROD text posted by Dave have very much in common. When did these practices originate? In what sense are they "traditional"? In what sense, if any, are they "illegitimate"?

It has been mentioned that the 1942 Slavonic edition was put together in Rome at the request of our Bishops. Which of our Bishops were part of this request? What was the response of Presov and Uzhhorod?

Here's something to consider from Lemko Rusyn in an old discussion of "Principles of Eastern liturgical reform and renewal".

Was an understanding of "Subcarpathian Ruthenian Church did" part of what happened in the Roman analysis? Has it informed our IELC?

I never suggested that everyone – or even most – in both groups would take ownership if they were involved. I’ve been very consistent in noting that the older clergy are the most unlikely to make a change. There is nothing that can be done with some in this group and they probably should be left alone until they retire.

People don’t like change. There are some who will embrace change because they evaluate it and see that it is good. Some don’t care and will go with the crowd. But most resist any change. The only way to garner their support is to make them enthusiastic for the change. Often the only way to do that is to include them in the process that produces the change. Someone who participates in the development of a product is far more likely to take ownership and be enthusiastic then someone who has not been part of the process. I spend about 6 weeks a year traveling to teach system administrators and users how to use a very complex software product. I have found that the worst thing you can do is to talk through a PowerPoint presentation (b-o-r-i-n-g!). The best method is always to put the sys admins in front of a computer screen so that they can experience first hand what the product we are designing for them offers them. When you then take good feedback and incorporate it into the next generation of the product you often earn life long support for anything you do. When they go back to others in their groups they carry with them a sense of ownership. That generates enthusiasm (or at least cooperation).

I can offer an example of this from my own very positive experience in the Church. Twenty-five years ago I began publishing liturgical music. Twenty years ago I started publishing weekly handouts. I never forced it upon anyone. From the beginning I regularly asked everyone who used anything I published to look for the mistakes and offer suggestions for improvement. I have had a lot of great feedback over the years and I believe my openness to having people tell me about my mistakes and responding in a serious way to the suggestions they have offered are – after the great quality of the product – a large part of why over 200 parishes subscribe to my various publications. Such inclusiveness must be real. It can’t be faked because people will see through any fakery.

In the case of the Liturgy you need to build goodwill by first addressing the issues both groups would likely agree to. Almost every priest uses the 1965/1965 text. If we first identified the obvious mistakes (i.e., a saints name mistranslated here, etc.) there would be no great opposition to those changes. Priests would take pen to their Liturgicons to make the corrections. Then – over time - you can put together a scholarly treatise that can be used to solicit feedback (envision for each issue a 5 page discussion of the problem in the current text, possible alternatives, and why one alternative should be chosen over the others). Not a vote but real participation. Then continue the process with more participation at each level until the really difficult issues arise. Once you reach that point you will very likely have generated a much higher level of enthusiasm for the change then if you had ignored those most involved then if you had excluded them from the process and presented them with a final product and a mandate. You won’t attract everyone.

Then look at the rubrics. Put aside for the moment a discussion of changing anything away from the Ruthenian recension and consider for purposes of example a fuller embracement of the 1942 Liturgy. Use the same process as above. Don’t just mandate that priests stop using pre-cut particles but give them material that shows them why the traditional way is better. Do a 5 page summary giving the liturgical theology on the issue. And don’t forget to include the practical stuff like how to bake prosphora that doesn’t crumble into little pieces when the priest tries to cut it. Make it familiar and desirable. Only then does it have a chance to be embraced by those open to change.

I could go on. Include with liturgical explanation of why all the litanies are necessary the very practical aid they are to good liturgy. They offer the worshiper a brief respite to consider what has come before and to prepare for what is to come. They give the deacon and priest the chance to pray their prayers. They prime the singing pump because they are so easy to sing. They offer the chanters a chance to get on track and stay on track whenever something goes flat.

So, no, you will never get everyone on board. But by including everyone involved in the process you will get many more to embrace the change.

The higher you set the standard the more likely larger numbers of people are going to reach for it and hit it.

When it was the standard by Catholics to fast from meat on Fridays not everyone did. But a lot more hit the standard (or came close to it) than happens now that abstaining from meat can essentially be replaced by an act of charity. The lowering of the standard in this case led to an almost abolishment of the standard.

In the liturgy if all the litanies were expected as the norm it is far more likely that those opposed to litanies will take one or more of them than it is if only one or two were mandated (in which case they probably wouldn’t take any!). [I’m not talking about the immovable group described above – they’re not going to change at all.]

Clergy and laity who attend Divine Liturgies where the fullness of the recension is celebrated, Liturgies that are also well sung and prayerful, will see that there is something there they want. It is a way forward in all situations. It will not generate enthusiasm from everyone but raising the standard always results in a better “product”.

I always remember the example of Bishop Michael of Passaic. As bishop he certainly did not celebrate the fullness of the Ruthenian recension. But he did greatly raise the standard of Liturgy in Passaic to a level that was much higher than the other eparchies. He did it mainly by his example and the expectations that example set.

Reprint the current Liturgicon with only the needed corrections. Engage in a multi-year (and maybe even generational) process of slowly raising the standard. If what Bishop Daniel had begun had been continued very slowly (even if only taught in the seminary) we would be there by now. It’s not too late to start!

I am glad to assume a more positive outlook. Maybe there is less antagonism and more possiblility of comity our priests - vostochniks and latinizers (and even young and old) - than might be inferred from your earlier post.

Last night I talked with a friend of mine who is a priest in the Johnstown Diocese.. He noted that Metropolitan Nicholas begun a process that will slowly raise the standard of Liturgy in that diocese. I do not know if Met. Nicholas will use the 1942 Liturgy as the eventual standard but it will be interesting to see what happens. He did offer one interesting point. The priests that use (or have used) the Byzantine Seminary Press 1964/1965 Liturgicon had far “higher” liturgies than those who used one of the several “homemade” Liturgicons.

The books should be as identical as possible to the official books of the Ruthenian recension – except in traditional standard American English.

Perhaps Father Serge can give us the details. I know that all or nearly all of the bishops of the Churches that make up the current Ruthenian recension together made the request to Rome. This included Bishop Basil of Pittsburgh.

I also know that Blessed Theodore (Romzha) printed the 1942 Liturgicon for use by his priests. I don’t know how close he and his priests came to following the rubrics. The influence of the official books upon the Liturgy as celebrated in Europe during the War, and later under the Communist oppressors would be a worthy topic for a book!

One could almost claim that the Ruthenian recension is merely the Russian recension with a number of at-the-time existent older customs sprinkled in. Some have argued that there should not really be a Ruthenian recension. They may be correct and new scholarship might someday determine this. It wouldn’t be that we are all Russians, just that the differences are truly too small for a separate recension. I am waiting for a good comparison of the Ruthenian and Russian recension to the 1639 Mohyla Liturgicon.

There is a lot of work to do before anyone can consider changing the standard.

I have no control over what you infer from what you read on the Forum.

Your nature seems to be one that seeks out discordant inferences and positions. Might I suggest that you stop inferring and concluding the worst about everything? You seem more interested in attacking and calling all those who disagree with you “chaff” than you are in building up the Church. I am very positive about the possibilities for our Church and say so continually. Why don’t you consider becoming a builder instead of a critic?

Other than the change from "bishop whom
God loves" back to "God-loving bishop", does anyone know what changes were made after the printing of the draft that has beem linked from this thread?

Dear Michael,
I don't know - but since what is presumably the "post-final draft" was produced in early June 2005, it's surely time that it was made public!

Fr Serge

I'm left wondering, how many do they use in your parish?

If these were reduced in a revised Liturgy book, how would you feel?

Nick