Administrator:
The fact that the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension edition is certainly more then enough reason to reject the Revision.
A literal adherence to the 1942 Sluzhebnik is exactly what many Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics (priests and laymen) have been praying for

Resp. - This is a basic disagreement of philosophy. I am not a “liturgical literal fundamentalist,” and I do not judge my liturgical work by the Administrator’s yardstick.

Administrator:
The Liturgical Instruction (which does apply directly to us) states: “In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.”

Response - Apparently the same Congregation thinks that our translation is faithful to the Orthodox tradition.

Administrator:
Father David seems to speak of the 1942 Sluzhebnik as if it were contemptible
Response. - He has conveniently ignored what I actually said:
“I will state that what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church.” I go on to say that it was meant only for the Eastern Catholic Church and not for the Orthodox - is this contempt????? Please!

Administrator:
The translation of the 1942 recension into the vernacular has no bearing on the idea that the presbyteral prayers should be prayed aloud.

Response. - This misses the point of what I said. If the Liturgy is in the vernacular, there is more reason to say the prayers aloud. Why say prayers aloud that the congregation would not understand (if they were in Church Slavonic.) Interestingly, a strict reading of the (Slavonic) rubrics would not call for the silent recitation of prayers.

Adminstrator:
As I have noted numerous times in these discussions, why mandate where liberty will serve?
Response. - Do you mean any priest can do what he likes?

Admiinstrator:
Surely the Spirit will lead. If, in a generation or so, the custom has become widespread and accepted across all of Byzantium then it can be documented in the liturgical books as an organic development.
Response. - It has already been widely done for at least two generations in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches (which the Administrator tries mightily to minimalize). Does the Administrator think that liturgical history begins with his experiences?

Administrator -
My story may or may not have been a banal but it certainly does show that even a four year old child understands that a “baggage man” can be either a man or a women.
Response. - My observation was not on what the child understood, but on the fact that the story is amusing only because the word”Man” is ambiguous.

Administrator:
Father David is either being modest or disingenuous. He alone is originator of almost all of the rubrical changes. I have no doubt that some were readily received and embraced by the commission while others were accepted only after much persuasion on Father David’s part.

Response - To read the Administrator’s responses is like riding a roller coaster. At one moment he is flattering - extolling my talents. The next minute he is saying that anything that I’ve proposed should be wiped off the face of the earth. Then up again, the Commission was convinced by my arguments, then down - not one of the faithful or clergy wants the translation. Up - I do great work for the Church, down - everything that I do is my personal opinion and not part of the true tradition. The Administrator sets the rules, and the rules assure that whether I succeed or fail in my liturgical vocation, I will fail, because if I succeed, it’s only my view and should be rejected by all. However, he missed the original point of my message - whatever my influence within the commission - and I can assure you, the Commission is certainly NOT a “David Petras Fan Club” - the work of the Commission is NOT my exclusive work - it is a work of the Church, as I said, ” [This project] was initiated by the Archbishop of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it was carried out by a committee of experts and pastors, it has been accepted by the Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, IT IS NOT SOMEONE’S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.
Much of what the Administrator reacts to is what was done in Passaic, of which I had absolutely no part. And if Passaic priests label it the “Petras” or “Petras/Pataki” Liturgy, it’s only because they, like the Administrator, want to “dis” it.

Administrator:
Father David’s crusade (to use his term) to mandate the priest to pray the presbyteral prayers aloud and to remove litanies predates the current effort to produce a new edition of the Liturgicon.
Already in the people’s edition we see some of the Prayers of the Anaphora other presbyteral prayers presented to be taken aloud (if not in specific rubric then in the way the page is arranged). We also see both truncated and missing litanies

Response. - This gives the impression that before my time, everyone said all the litanies and that I was responsible for people’s books that removed them. This, of course, is pure claptrap. The litanies were not said for a couple of generations before I became a priest. Commissions on which I served added litanies. [Of course, this does not meet the Administrator’s “liturgical literal fundamentalism,“ but, to be honest, I don’t care about his judgment anymore.]
As I’ve already explained on numerous occasions, the presbyteral prayers alone can restore the anamnetic portions of the Liturgy for the people. [Please do not bother me with that silliness that they can read them along in their “missals.”]

Administrator:
Had he not been part of the commission I have no doubt that the commission would have produced a new Liturgicon that would contain minimal updates to the 1964/1965 edition and that there would have been no rubrical changes (I believe that was the original charge from Metropolitan Judson).

Response. - Before my time, Archbishop Dolinay constituted a liturgical commission dedicated to restoring the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik. So, it is not so clear you would have gotten a minimal updating to the 1965 edition (which is not the norm for the whole Ruthenian recension, as you otherwise seem to think.) The original charge from Metropolitan Judson was only to produce a truly Eastern Liturgicon that could be standard for the whole metropolia. The Administrator will claim that we already have that standard - the 1965 Liturgicon. However, it was derailed and compromised. Nor do I hold necessarily to a complete literary fundamentalism in regard to it - though I do not hold it contemptible (cf. above).

Adminiistrator:
Prominent Orthodox hierarchs from two different jurisdictions who are part of the Ruthenian recension have publicly spoken of the desire for a common translation.

Response. I don’t doubt it. If it’s public, can you name who, where and when? I myself want a common translation, but to demand it is a good way to postpone indefinitely any liturgical work, which is probably what some on the Byzantine Forum want.

Dear Father David,

As I understand it, the Administrator's "yardstick" is the official texts (including rubrics) as set forth in the Slavonic books published by Rome. Like many of us, the Administrator thinks that nothing other than an accurate, careful, complete translation of those books will do. (without alteration to the rubrics, inclusive language, reorganization or any other hint at revision).

What "yardstick" is the commission using?

Nick

Nicholas, what was the yardstick used by Rome, in setting forth their Slavonic books?

Dear djs,

Very good question. There is documentation available for some of their work.

But whatever their yardstick (becuase it was the normative text that Rome published for our Churches) it is the only text (words and rubrics) that can unite our Church. Any other revision, reorganization, abbreviation, "improvement" will divide the Church.

Nick

Without attempting to match eloquence for eloquence, let’s see if a few thoughts might cut through the discussion and reduce it to a manageable level.

It is obvious that one viewpoint wants – at least for a significant period of time – the Divine Liturgy (in English or whatever the vernacular might be) as it was given to us in c. 1941, and that one ground for this desire is that this version of the Liturgy has never been given any possibility in the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate.

It is equally obvious that the opposite point of view does not want any possibility of return to the Divine Liturgy as promulgated in c. 1941 and published in English in 1965. So far as I can tell, the reason given by the proponents of immediate and rapid change is that the 1941/1965 Liturgy is somehow not suitable. It might help if they would be more specific in telling the rest of us what it is, particularly, that they dislike about the Ruthenian Recension version of the Divine Liturgy.

The Administrator reminds us of the responsibility to fidelity to the Orthodox tradition. Father David responds that apparently the Congregation thinks that the new improved version is faithful to the Orthodox tradition. There are two problems with Father David’s position:
a) it is, of course, possible for the Oriental Congregation to be mistaken – it has happened before even in the history of this relatively young dicastery;
b) appealing to a document which no one is allowed to read and verify is unconvincing.

Nothing whatever indicates that the 1941 Ruthenian Recension service book was intended only for Catholics – and I have seen the book (in Slavonic) in use at Orthodox altars.

With regard to the desire for the recitation or chanting of the presbyteral prayers aloud: what evidence is there that a majority of the faithful in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia actively want this change?

Father David asks “Do you mean any priest can do what he likes?” Well, that has certainly tended to be the case!

There may be a disagreement of fact here: has there been a study among, say, Orthodox in the USA to determine just how wide-spread the recitation or chanting of the presbyteral prayers aloud is among them?

Might we not all agree that, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would have said, what is important is the draft translation/recasting, rather than the identity of who proposed what to whom?

There were certainly some places – but a minority – where more of the litanies survived than they did in others (Hazelton comes to mind, for example). It is also true that in more recent decades one could find priests who restored litanies which had been dropped for a time.

Father David reports that “Archbishop Dolinay constituted a liturgical commission dedicated to restoring the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik.” That is not altogether surprising; it fits what is known of Archbishop Thomas and the opinions he expressed in print. But might we know more of this “back to 1905 L’viv” project?

The mention of Orthodox hierarchs who would like a common translation with the Greek-Catholics includes the OCA (who actually approached Pittsburgh with such a proposal before the publication of the 1965 book), the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, and the Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdiction (this can be verified with Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod).

I see no evidence to cause me to believe that Greek-Catholics contributing to the forum want an end to liturgical study. I certainly would not support such an idea. What I do want is the patience to wait, for instance, until Father Taft finishes his book (and he is hard at work doing just that right now) and some other materials are more generally known. Source materials which are inaccessible even 15 years ago are available now, and they merit close attention.

Incognitus

Dear Father David,

I find your response here somewhat thin.

Which Orthodox hierarchs looked at the revised revision of the liturgical revision and offered their comments and advisements prior to sending said revision to Rome?

Who in the Oriental Congregation offered the text to any Orthodox hierarch for their comments and counsels prior to receiving this latest revision?

Is there anything of substance that was done to insure that we have not drifted any further away liturgically, from our Orthodox root.

I, personally, am aware of the response of at least three Orthodox hierarchs to the current Passaic liturgy. The responses were not what I would call enthusiastic.

Eventually we will know what the Orthodox think of this one, regardless of what the Oriental Congregation thinks or says, now or then.

Eli

Dear Father David,

you wrote,
'"the work of the Commission is NOT my exclusive work - it is a work of the Church"'

I consider myself part of the "Church." I take great offense to your implication of me in this dreadful offence.

We must fully express our Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church through Holy, Pure, and Complete Divine Liturgy. No abreviations! No Evil Inclusive Language Changes! No Claptrap!

By YOUR participation in this great crime, you are severely hurting the the Church in many ways, including and especially Vocations.

Dear InCogNeat3's,

I think what Father David means is the "clerical Church". It is the work of the Archbishop and Bishops, and their appointed committee. (All priests, all men, all like minded individuals, if we are to believe that they all agreed to this fiasco.) The idea the the bishops and priests constitute the Church, is a common mistake, I call "clericalism".

The committee for the revision of the Liturgy clearly does not speak for the Church, in the sense of the "people of God". Even the committee will have to admit, that there is certainly nothing approaching a concensus of the faithful.

There is absolutely no general movement for the revision of our Liturgy. (We won't even mention the re-writing of the chant!) It is only the imposition of a clerical elite.

I am still hoping that the Archbishop will come to his senses, and start listening to the people. We are the Church, after all.

This revised Liturgy is not the "work of the Church". Fr. David is wrong on that point.

Nick

Since you don't know the yardstick of the Roman edition, why do you feel the need to cling to it with what Fr. David calls fundamental literalism? That is puzzling to me. Especially since your comment on unity is, as you must know from reading this forum, incorrect. You might also like to consider: there must be some reasons that Bishops had reservations about the Roman edition; there must be some reasons that most of our parishes do not use it. I don't have a clear idea of what the reasons are, I simply think that they exist. And their existence immediately provides a response to incognitus's suggestion (that so nicely begs the question: who doesn't want what?) The goal is an edition with a fuller and richer practice that will be used.

InCogNeat3's: You are probably unaware that few if any parishes - Orthodox or Greek Catholic - celebrate the complete Divine Liturgy. I don't think anyone else is recommending the "Complete Divine Liturgy. No abbreviations!". But I think we all agree on "No Evil Inclusive Language Changes!". Or did you mean all inclusive language changes?

djs writes that "there must be some reasons that Bishops had reservations about the Roman edition; there must be some reasons that most of our parishes do not use it. I don't have a clear idea of what the reasons are, I simply think that they exist."

Of course there were reasons that several bishops were, ah, "hesitant" about the Roman edition. Some of those reasons were:

a) Bishop Basil Takach: the Exarchate was still in the throes of the schism of the 1930s over celibacy and World War II was on; he did not need any further disturbance. When World War II ended Bishop Basil had serious cancer and his most urgent need was for a coadjutor, whom he obtained in the person of Bishop Daniel.

b) Bishop Daniel in a reasonable amount of time began the process of implementing the Roman edition. That in turn may have stimulated others who felt that he had betrayed them in his personal life to oppose anything of "his" that they could.

c) Bishop Nicholas strongly and emotionally felt that he wanted a liturgical praxis as far removed from that of Eastern Orthodoxy as possible - as he once said, he wanted "to take the grease out of the Greeks". He also regarded this issue as one of loyalty to the bishop (himself) and did not hesitate to penalize any priest who differed with him on the subject.

d) Archbishop Stephen felt that the Metropolia had already gone through more than its share of turmoil, that the turmoil which hit the Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II promised further trouble, and that the liturgical issue was best served by keeping the lid on and making no changes in the existing praxis.

e) Bishop Emil of Parma promulgated the Ordo and made a serious attempt to introduce it. His colleagues among the bishops managed to stop him - and destroy his enthusiasm for much of anything in the process.

Want more?

In the parishes, most priests were becoming increasingly overworked because of the shortage of clergy (brought on in significant part by a clergy malaise, not to use stronger expressions). Some did not wish to oppose the bishops, some considered it impractical to try to implement the changes which the Roman edition required in the face of episcopal opposition. All of them noticed that Rome continued to appoint bishops who were opposed to the Roman edition of the Liturgy, so Rome does not have entirely clean hands in the matter. We have all noticed that many clergy left, and the number of seminarians dropped unbelievably in a very few years.

So that might give some (not all) of the reasons which contributed to the endless postponement.

Incognitus

Yes. Every possible scrap of information.

Because any opposing institutional memory in this Church has been silenced and the rest of us don't have one. A memory of what was, I mean.

Eli

I agree.

This post of incognitus was very illuminating.
This eariler comment ...
seemed not only not obvious, but difficult even to regard as correct. Through the prism of the past, however, - the inaction or counter-action of Bishops Basil, Daniel (who you most posters here know to mention wrote to Rome for numerous changes in the practice), Nicholas, Stephen, etc. - I can understand the temptation to regard the motives and actions of the present IELC and Synod as more of the same. But from Fr. David we understand differently.

We all should understand that we are unquestionably working to restore Eastern practices. That English texts and music are now readily available for propers for the Divine Liurgy, Vespers, and Matins is a hugh step forward. Ditto Pre-sanctified, Bridegroom matins, St. Andrew's canon, etc. When I was young, this material was at best, very hard to come by. Now it's just there, and I am elated by this progress.

So the context of whatever is happening must - to be fair - be viewed in the context of restoration and Easternization - rather than Westernization (Latinization or Americanization), simple adherence to the status quo, or unbridled modernization. This context seems to me to be crystal clear; it is the decisive answer to every slippery slope phobia.

So what of the Liturgical Restoration itself? The status quo will not be maintainted in this climate of restoration. For those who, as the Administrator's recent comments suggtested, have been longing for the past 65 years for the implementation of the 1941 edition - well, nothing else will do. But as incognitus illustrates, this edition has never had traction among us. The reasons he gave vary, but, consistently, there was always a reason. I could speculate - just guessing - about more. Was this seen as a Russification that some young Congregation in Rome was attempting to impose on us, after too much from Rome already? Were we fairly repesented in this work? Our Bishop, priests, laity ( :p )? At what point did we become interested in unity with the UGCC?

Over the past 65 years it appears that this Roman edition has become the path not taken. (Although the idea that that has made all the difference - e.g., for the seminary ignores too much other experience to be accepted.) Imagine then the difficulty in trying, after all of this history, to implement it.

This problem makes much clearer, at least to me, the wisdom of setting out to make to a new edition that represents both a restoration of Eatern practice, and an edition that we just might actually use. Actually, a pretty profund idea, that Fr. David attributed to Metr. Judson.

djs inadvertently raises an important question for discussion - just what constitutes a restoration of Eastern practice?

As for the Ukrainians, it should suffice to note that in Church-Slavonic the Ruthenians were using the 1905 L'viv service-book which according to Father David Archbishop Thomas Dolinay wanted to restore. So using the same books as the Ukrainians was not an issue.

Incognitus

I am not sure that it ever was. But the idea of using a particular book so as to facilitate unity with the UGCC - I am not sure when, if ever, that idea gained traction.

I had thought that the liturgical changes being secretly imposed on us were certainly done in an un-Eastern way and the changes themselves were of some consequence but were secondary to the much more serious problems of lack of leadership, stewardship, and evangelization. I see it differently now.

If we are to be revived this is one of the types of incidences that may bring about the revival. After all death must precede life. This may cause a death or a split. Either would not be a surprise. What I'm wondering is this, will the chaos that this imposed liturgy bring about a death that will bring about a revived Church and a revived episcopacy or will this bring the end of the road?

We will see.

CDL

I thank Father David very much for his post. In order to keep both of our comments in context I will need to quote fairly extensively in replying.

I agree with Father David that this is a disagreement of philosophy. Insofar as the proposed Revised Liturgy includes agendas like offensive gender neutral language, reorganization of litanies, abbreviations, altered and invented rubrics Father David is correct that our yardsticks are quite different. Given what we read in the Vatican documents (especially Liturgiam Authenticam, the Liturgical Instruction, and most everything else addressed to the Eastern Catholic Churches that touch on Liturgy) it is pretty clear that the rest of the Church also has a very different philosophy than does Father David.

It is my hope that Father David, all the members of the commission, and all of our hierarchs would judge the work of the commission by the yardstick of the 1942 Sluzhebnik. It is the standard our bishops requested of Rome by our own bishops and which we now share with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox). If it is discovered that there are parts of the 1942 Sluzhebnik that are incorrect or otherwise need altering the correct process is to accomplish such change through and agreement of all of the Churches which use the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox).


Claims about what the congregation has or has not approved are meaningless until the letter is made public. It is standard procedure that the authority of such letters is effective when the letters are made public. If the bishops promulgate this Revised Liturgy without also making the letter public then they promulgate on their own authority and not on the authority of the Oriental Congregation.

I understand and respect that Father David is in obedience to the bishops who have chosen not to make this letter public. I recommend that he not claim the authority of such an approval until a time when it is legitimate to do so.

But then, should such an approval take effect, there is the issue of the content of the letter. It is my understanding that the letter contained three or four pages of corrections to the text (and this was the text submitted about 10 years ago and not the current revision of the Revised Liturgy).

This situation makes me wonder if anyone here knows if the incredibly bad 1985 Slovak edition of the Divine Liturgy published by Bishop Hirka had approval by the Oriental Congregation. I understand that the new Slovak edition is very faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik.

If Father David were putting forth some corrections to the official recension liturgical books based upon new scholarship that would bring us closer to the style of celebration before the unions his comment might make sense. But since much of what he has proposed is merely his personal taste in Liturgy and does not in any way serve to unite us with our fellow Byzantine Catholics (let alone with the Orthodox) his comment (“the best that they could do”) can only be seen as one of contempt for the 1942 Sluzhebnik.

Father David’s point is not logical as he has expressed it. In the accounts I have read the anaphora began to be offered quietly long before the language used ceased to be the vernacular. At various points in time Slavonic, Latin, Greek and other languages were readily understood vernacular languages. Yet the anaphora was prayed quietly.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his “The Spirit of the Liturgy” (written when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) discusses the problem of multiplication of Eucharistic Prayers (in the Latin Rite) and concludes: “Multiplying words is no help…. However, as far I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, especially, might constitute communion before God.”

As Father David correctly notes the Ruthenian edition does not specifically state that some of these prayers by prayed “quietly”. I have been consistent in stating that where the rubrics are not specific to whether prayers should be prayed quietly or aloud one should allow liberty, let the priest pray them quietly or aloud as he feels led by the Spirit.

There is not a single jurisdiction – Orthodox or Catholic – that has published a Liturgicon with rubrics directing that the presbyteral prayers be prayed in an audible voice. [The possible exception might be New Skete, but they certainly don’t qualify as “many”.] The fact that it has been done on occasion or even consistently in some parishes here in the United States for two generations does not support Father David’s claim of “widely”.

As noted already in these discussions, a good example of a custom that is growing organically is the Gospel sometimes proclaimed at the doors of the Church at the start of Pascha Matins. If this custom continues to be embraced by the various Churches of the Ruthenian recension at some point it will be appropriate for all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension to consider adding it as an option to the official books. If the custom of praying the presbyteral prayers aloud grows to the point where it freely becomes the majority custom only then should consideration be given to altering the books. To mandate something based upon the experience of what can only be rightly be called a tiny minority of the Byzantine Church is not appropriate. Until such time our bishops should follow the books and rubrics published by Rome – a literal faithful observance. Until such time Father David should stop seeking to legislate upon our Church his personal preferences in liturgy.

The term “man” is certainly not ambiguous. Such ideas are the deliberate product of the secular feminists. Even here they do not claim “ambiguity of meaning” so much as they claim to be offended by Standard English.

Perhaps Father David will consider trying to convince us that the Vatican directives are wrong? They are extremely clear on this issue. Even if Father David can convince us that the term “man” is ambiguous he cannot get past the Vatican teaching that the correct response is not one of changing the words but of educating the faithful.

I am confused by Father David’s words here. Is he suggesting that it is impossible for me to be in awe of his talents and respectful of the work he has done while also disagreeing with him on several issues?

I will repeat what I have stated consistently. Father David is respected. He has won that respect through a lifetime’s effort in working with liturgy. The work that he and the commission place before the Church, however, is not adequate. It is based upon a flawed premise. As I have stated numerous times and will keep stating, there is much very good work hiding behind the intentional revisions and the offensive gender neutral language. So let’s not equate legitimate disagreement with disrespect. Talented people are capable of producing something that is inadequate, especially if they are working from an inadequate standard.

I am reacting to the 2004 text that has been distributed to our clergy and, from them, to the people. The current Passaic edition and the 1986 Parma edition contain differences but both are much based upon Father David’s liturgical preferences.

Father David might like to consider that the terms “Petras Liturgy” and “Petras/Pataki Liturgy” date back to the Parma clergy’s description of the 1986 Parma Liturgy. Even after 20 years that revision of the Liturgy has still not won acceptance.

The fact that the litanies were not taken in many places for many years has nothing to do with the fact that they are supposed to be there. I have never suggested even once that Father David is responsible for the removal of these litanies. I have suggested that he is now justifying their removal and preventing those who wish to pray them from doing so by preparing a Revised Liturgicon that does not contain them.

I don’t think I’ve ever stated that one can follow along in the pew book. Of course, this is perfectly true.

But Father David’s explanation that the Liturgy is broken when the presbyteral prayers are prayed quietly is wanting. It is certainly a minority opinion across the Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

Father David makes a valid point. We really cannot trust our hierarchs to promulgate a Liturgy that is faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik. He rightly states that if Metropolitan Thomas had lived for many more years we might have had a Liturgicon closer to the 1905 Sluzhebnik than the 1942 Sluzhebnik. I hope that even here Rome would have intervened. I am positive that Rome – if prodded - will intervene in the current situation.

I also agree with Father David that implementation of the 1965 Liturgicon was derailed. We have much to restore before we can completely live our inherited tradition. The first task is to implement the recension books and the “ordo”. Since we – as Church – have never FULLY IMPLEMENTED (lived) or FAITHFULLY prayed inside our tradition we would be arrogant to believe that we can improve upon it. That is why I so much support a reprinting of the 1964/65 editoin that corrects only those elements that were incorrect or at odds with the 1942 Sluzhebnik.

I do continue to disagree with Father David’s belief that we need not be literally true to the 1942 Sluzhebnik. Embracing the 1942 Sluzhebnik is the only way forward. It is the only way to unite our Church. Certainly the broad opposition to the proposed revisions (by both the Latinizers and the Traditionalists and the majority of the faithful) will not unite anyone.

In recent years at the Orientale Lumen conferences here in Washington, DC I have heard both Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown and Archbishop Vsevolod of Chicago praise the Ruthenian recension books, note that they do serve as a standard for both Catholic and Orthodox, and call for a common translation.

I do not make my comments to postpone any liturgical work. I make them only in hopes of thwarting liturgical work that is not completely and literally faithful to our Ruthenian Recension, according to the books given by Rome. Again, should these books be at fault they can be corrected together with all the Churches which make up the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox).

Actually Dan, what is most unusual - and decidedly un-Eastern here is the public nature of input and discusion on this matter, as we have discussed and you have conceded before. So now why do you go back to this phony idea of secrecy?

djs, I fear, is confused. To begin at the end, he denies that secrecy is involved. Consider these examples:

a) the letter from the Oriental Congregation which, we are told, approves this new translation/recasting is not available for the clergy and faithful to read;
b) there has been no serious effort to consult the faithful on this project; and
c) there has been no publication of a draft for discussion.

That's a method of using secrecy in my reading of the situation.

djs also observes that the existing discussion is unusual. It certainly is - and no thanks to the hierarchs and/or the commission. The existing discussion is taking place because of the Internet, and because we now have an aware laity who don't propose to take whatever someone throws at them.

This latest red herring of adopting a book so as to have some sort of identity with the Ukrainians is indeed a red herring. The Eparchy of Mukachevo and its sister/daughter eparchies always relied on books from Kyiv and L'viv; that is hardly a secret. Are Kyiv and L'viv ethnically neutral and is Rome a hot-bed of Ukrainianism? When Rome produced this series of books, Rome called it the Ruthenian Recension, not the "Ukrainian" Recension - and the books were certainly not produced to encourage Ukrainian nationalism.

djs writes "That English texts and music are now readily available for propers for the Divine Liurgy, Vespers, and Matins is a hugh step forward. Ditto Pre-sanctified, Bridegroom matins, St. Andrew's canon, etc. When I was young, this material was at best, very hard to come by." Either he is considerably older than I am - and I am no spring chicken! - or he did not know where to look to find texts and music for the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, Pre-sanctified, Bridegroom Matins, St. Andrew's canon, etc. Much of this was made available half a century ago by Michael Hilko (God rest his soul and may he pray for us), one of the best musicologists the Carpatho-Rusyns in America ever produced and a strong advocate of holding divine services in English. Actually, someone should write a history of the provision of English-language texts and music for our divine services; it would be interesting and edifying and would give over-due recognition (I hope) to people such as Michael Hilko who worked hard, patiently and fruitfully for decades with scant financial reward.

Then, as now, one did need to know where to look to obtain these materials. Michael Hilko was based in the obscure, unheard-of hamlet of . . . ah, yes, here it is . . . Passaic, New Jersey.

And there were others who should be remembered, not to mention elders who are still on the scene and still working.

Incognitus

Where is this publicly disseminated liturgy? Where is it? I'm simply observing what is happening. I'm still not convinced fully that the liturgy itself would have been that destructive, but when it is not published for review by the people one sees what response one receives. Imagine what could have happened if this had been seen by every Church a year ago. The changes back to where they should be would have already been made and we would doubtless be praying the "new" liturgy now. RCs have a habit of impoosing jolting changes. I thought the Eastern way followed the old dictum of Lex orandi Lex crendendi.

Be that as it may, I hope our hierarchs try a different approach.

CDL

I certainly do not want to continue this debate. I would like to carry on a discussion with someone who accepts what I say and responds to that rather than to what he arbitrarily reads into it. However, I will make some response for the record, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

I am preparing a review of Serge Keleher’s book on the subject, which will eventually appear on my website: www.davidpetras.com

First, the Slovak edition:
1) the first edition was bad, I believe, even eliminating the epiclesis. Rome disapproved it.
2) the second is better, in format, however, it follows almost like our newest proposal. The public recitation of the presbyteral prayers is not common, but under discussion.
3) the Slovak Church is just emerging from a period of intense latinization.
4) the text under discussion on this board is after the review by Rome, which mandated some changes, all relatively minor. Of course, the Board will retreat to its usual hysteria that you cannot bring this up because it isn’t public. If so, then, you, Sir Adminstrator, should not make insinuations that the original IELC translation was as bad as the 1st Slovak edition. That’s “dirty pool” of the worst kind and typical of the Byzantine Forum Crusade.

Administrator:
“Father David’s point is not logical as he has expressed it.” Of course its logical, because it follows from my premises. You dispute it only on grounds of historical data, which are completely bogus.
Logic - “correct reasoning, valid induction or deduction”
Here is incorrect “logic”
a: The Liturgy is Latin was said silently.
b. Latin was once a vernacular language
c. Therefore, the Liturgy in vernacular was said silently.

Administrator: “ ... does not support Father David’s claim of ‘widely.’” “ ... of what can only be called a tiny minority ... “ ”even after 20 years that revision of the Liturgy has still not won acceptance ... “

But this is simply the Administrator’s opinion, with no supporting data.

Administrator:
“Father David should stop seeking to legislate upon our Church his personal preferences in liturgy.”

The administrator delights in saying this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, though my suggestions are hardly my invention, they are proposals that have been circulating since the 19th century. We have the same principle: faithfulness to the Ruthenian recension. The Administrator’s position is one of “literal fundamentalism,” mine is that the spirit of the Recension can be expressed together with some sound parochial non-Western practices. [As one Orthodox priest, present at a celebration of the Liturgy in my parish in the Eparchy of Parma said, “You liturgy brings out the best in the potential of the Byzantine Liturgy,” of course, knowing the crusade in the Byzantine Forum, this statement will have to be minimalized and deconstructed, since nothing in favor of the current proposal is allowed to stand.] I submit that the Administrator’s proposal that we have to observe literally the 1941 Recension for a generation or two (happily removing himself from its future) is a dereliction of our generation’s duty to be faithful for the sake of the people to the spirit of the Byzantine tradition and is the principle of an Eastern Catholic European academic elite. So my response is simple: I will continue to support what I think is right, and if I must abandon this because of what the Administrator thinks is personal preference, then he should also abandon his position and remain silent, because his position is only his own personal preference.

Administrator:
“The term ‘man’ is certainly not ambiguous.”

Resp. I meditated on this when I had to go to the rest room in the Red Lobster on McKnight Rd. The sign said “Men,” but I guess now that it was a unisex toilet. Thanks for clarifying that.
I think the Administrator’s response revealed the true meaning of the anti-Liturgy crusade - it is the fear of “inclusive language.” But this must be dealt with in a separate post.

Finally, two points, but with the same result:

Administrator:
Father David’s crusade (...) To remove litanies predates the current effort to produce an new edition .... Already in the people’s edition .... we also see both truncated and missing litanies.”

When I cried foul, the Administrator went on:
“I have never suggested even once that Father David is responsible for the removal of these litanies.” ???? ... but you claim I am responsible for those edition (e.g, the “Petras Liturgy,”) and “Father David’s crusade .... “ ???? Do you speak English? Say what you mean and mean what you say, brother.

Likewise, I said, “I will state that what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church.”

The Administrator went on “But since much of what he has proposed is merely his personal taste ... his comment can only be seen as one of contempt of the 1942 Sluzhebnik.”

At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said:
“We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.... but, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground.”
I imagine the Adminstrator would say, he is showing contempt for the Union soldiers (“we cannot dedicate ... this ground.”

The Administrator must be desperate, to read my words in the exact opposite sense from which I meant them. How can I possibly carry on a dialogue or even a debate with someone who will not allow my words to mean what they mean. If I said “Christ is risen!,” would you then respond, “we see here that Fr. Petras obviously does not believe in the resurrection.” This thread has become completely impossible unless we follow the rules of logic.

A simple question from a simple man: "When will we see this new recension?"

CDL

This new recension is published in the book Father David mentioned above. You may need a magnifying glass to read it.

Incognitus

Would the mysterious author, of this post, please indulge his mysterious co-respondant, and all others invested with the gift of this mysterious medium, with the title of this mysterious publication, that will soon be secretly reviewed by a mysterious, and slightly put out, student of things liturgical, and also which contains the highly secretive, and illegible copy of a mysterious liturgy that is soon to be unveiled in some obscure little parish somewhere, full of ancient Little Russians who have mysteriously managed to escape the current wave of ethnic cleansing in the Ruthenian Church in America, and who can still, for the moment still sing mysteriously of the mystical, in heart squeezing natural harmonies that reveal the soul of a Church to God's mysterious and mystical ear.

Eli

Yeah, I checked Father Petras' blog as well and could not find the recension. I just figured I was a computer dolt. It's good to have company, I guess. I sure wish it weren't so hard to find.

CDL

We would be sore pressed to blame you, Father David. If I were in your shoes I'd want to paddle my little feet as far away from here as possible.

Which makes me wonder why you remain, why you are willing to carry on this public challenge to the new and improved liturgy which seems to be being presented as an accomplished fact, a current reality, however much it remains out of sight for most of us.

You and every politician and attorney that I know in this world. But frankly I do not think the Administrator is coming across to the rest of us as senselessly as he apparently is to you.


Yes. There is supporting data and if I am personally aware of it then others are as well and I think that has a great deal to do with why you remain in this discussion. I think there is a growing threat of real and informed rebellion over this liturgy and I think you are well advised to remain in contact with the people of the Church.

I also think the experience of the Latin rite in its re-visioning of the Novus Ordo commissioned revisions must also weigh in to the willingness to send this liturgy to press prematurely.

It is true Oriental Congregation may not have its very own Cardinal Arinze. Yet.

This brings us back to my question that remains unanswered. I personally can tell you of one Orthodox bishop, Metropolitan Nicholas, by name since he has already been mentioned in this context, who is not at all impressed with the current revised Liturgy.

There are others, Orthodox hierarchs and clergy and Byzantine lay faithful, who have commented to me personally on the current texts, and the comments have been rather saddening to hear, in fact. So to assert that all is well, even as things stand, except for a few latinizations of the liturgy, is apparently not quite real either.

So I ask again. Has this new liturgy and its rubrics and chant been distributed to any competent Orthodox authorities for counsel and advisement of any kind?

If not. Why not?, given the expressed desire to de-latinize the liturgy, given your own apparent and personal repugnance for Latin habits, which include recommendations to employ texts which are subsequently not provided and the widespread usage of inclusive language and sense meanings which distort the original texts.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Could we have a bit more substance in the body of your protestations to the Administrator's concerns?

Eli

The Slovak translation – the controversial one was published by the Eparchy of Preshov in 1986; in the preface Msgr. Hirka mentions previous editions of 1970 and 1976. He does not mention it, but in fact Cardinal Lourduswamy, then Prefect of the Oriental Congregation, gave him an oral permission for the 1986 edition – which is why it took several years of reiterated protests to cause Rome finally to require that it be withdrawn.

The most recent Slovak translation that I am aware of I received on the Internet only last year. It is almost a straight translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Recension Church-Slavonic edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

This new Slovak edition adds three local saints to the list of hierarchs at the Prothesis (which is normal; most local Churches naturally venerate the local saints), adds four saints to the list of monastics (including Saint Moses of Uhrin, which is particularly interesting), includes the commemoration of the Metropolitan, even though Slovakia does not yet have one, mistranslates pravoslavny as “pravoverných”, which is annoying but not much of a surprise, omits the commemorations of an Emperor or King (there is neither in Slovakia, and the political situation is sufficiently volatile that one can understand the need for the omission), includes the rubrics for the opening and closing of the Royal Doors [in brackets], includes the Filioque [in brackets], the rubric for the Deacon to use the ripidia is in brackets, prinosjashche is annoyingly mistranslated as prinášame, a phrase appears to be missing (this is perhaps a typographical error) from the hymn to the Theotokos sung during the Anaphora, the reference to the Zeon is in brackets (as it also is in the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition), the “extra” prayer before Communion used by US Ruthenians but not in the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition is also not in the present Slovak translation, the references to the sponge are in brackets (as in the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition), and I found no further changes. I don’t speak Slovak, so I can’t vouch for the text, but apart from what I have mentioned above this certainly appears to be a reasonably good translation of the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition. NOT ONE LITANY HAS BEEN OMITTED.

So, with respect to Father David, it would nice to know what edition he is describing as “it follows almost like our newest proposal.” What newest proposal?

Father David writes that “the text under discussion on this board is after the review by Rome, which mandated some changes, all relatively minor.” Relatively minor? Relative to what? And why is it unfair to complain that one cannot take seriously a document which one is not permitted to see and read? We are discussing the Liturgy, which belongs to all of us – not something by Franz Kafka.

Father David urges that the Administrator “should not make insinuations that the original IELC translation was as bad as the 1st Slovak edition”. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. Until whatever the original IELC translation is or was becomes available, I shall have no means of “judging” it against the 1986 Slovak edition.

Would Father David be so kind as to explain what he means by the “Byzantine Forum Crusade”? Neither I nor other participants in the forum whom I know personally are aware that we are involved in any crusade at all.

Father David asserts (in response to a criticism of his logic) that “Of course its logical, because it follows from my premises.” Whatever follows from Father David’s premises is therefore logical, and whatever does not follow from Father David’s premises is therefore illogical? That might be true in an abstract philosophical construct (such games are popular among graduate students), but not in normal discourse, and certainly not among people who have not been told that they are recruited to participate in such a philosophical construct. The real world most of us inhabit has objective standards of logic.

Father David then offers a thumbnail definition of logic: “correct reasoning, valid induction or deduction”. That might work, if we are agreed that “correct reasoning“ is the same thing as “right reason“, which in turn means reason based on truth, which in turn means the adequation of thought to reality. Any system of logic which leaves out the adequation of thought to reality is at best amusing and at worst fatal. Chesterton pointed out many decades ago that the common description of a lunatic as a man who has lost his reason is the reverse of the truth: the lunatic is often perfectly reasonable, and his madness can be a highly elaborate system of thought, which works perfectly except that it is not based upon the adequation of thought to reality. Most of us have probably met such people.

Father David offers us an example of what he considers incorrect logic:

a: The Liturgy is Latin was said silently.
b. Latin was once a vernacular language
c. Therefore, the Liturgy in vernacular was said silently.

Well, as it happens, much of the Latin Mass was said silently (and still is in those places where the 1962 Missal remains in vogue). Latin was certainly a vernacular language - Virgil, for example, did not write the Aeneid in a dead language, and Cicero did not deliver his orations against Catiline in a dead language. The Roman, Ambrosian, Gallican and monastic liturgies were not put into Latin in a conspiracy to ensure that nobody could understand them. So it seems fairly clear that, whatever else was going on, the recitation of the Canon (apart from the Preface and the closing Per Ipsum) was not felt to impede the worshippers in their apprehension of the Mysterium Fidei.

Besides attacking the Administrator ad hominem, Father David also mentions that what he himself is proposing has been proposed since the nineteenth century. No doubt some of the proposals he seeks to advance have some sort of pedigree. But would Father David be so generous as to supply references? The context of a proposal is not altogether irrelevant.

Father David tells us that he is advocating “sound parochial non-Western practices”. If he means the recitation of the Anaphora aloud, that requires demonstration, particularly since the vast majority of Orthodox and Greek-Catholics have never encountered such a practice.

Unsurprisingly, Father David is thoroughly displeased by the Administrator’s point that “the Administrator’s proposal that we have to observe literally the 1941 Recension for a generation or two”. But first, this is not merely the Administrator’s personal point: others have made it as well. What Father David is doing is insisting upon a reform of that which most of the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not know from actual practice – and as Lambert Beauduin pointed out, we may not reform what we do not know. This can scarcely be called the Administrator’s personal preference and nothing more.

One expects any grown-up person who speaks English to know the standard ways of designating public conveniences. But does Father David seriously propose that the language of the Liturgy should be identical to the language of the toilet?

In assessing an attitude towards a particular phenomenon – in this instance towards the 1941 Order of the Divine Liturgy – one is influenced, certainly, by public statements but also by public behavior. There seems to be a lack of consistency between Father David’s statement that “what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church” and his statement a few paragraphs earlier that the proposal to actually use the 1941 Order of the Divine Liturgy for a significant period of time is “is a dereliction of our generation’s duty”. In any event, it is only too clear that Father David does not want the 1941 Order of service, and certainly not in English. He has yet to tell us why he does not want it. I fail to grasp the connection between this and the Gettysburg Address.

Incognitus

Dear Eli,

You ask "Would the mysterious author, of this post, please indulge his mysterious co-respondant, and all others invested with the gift of this mysterious medium, with the title of this mysterious publication, that will soon be secretly reviewed by a mysterious, and slightly put out, student of things liturgical, and also which contains the highly secretive, and illegible copy of a mysterious liturgy that is soon to be unveiled in some obscure little parish somewhere, full of ancient Little Russians who have mysteriously managed to escape the current wave of ethnic cleansing in the Ruthenian Church in America, and who can still, for the moment still sing mysteriously of the mystical, in heart squeezing natural harmonies that reveal the soul of a Church to God's mysterious and mystical ear."

I am most happy to respond to this delightfully-worded request:

The book you want is Studies in the Byzantine Liturgy -1: The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenain Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. It can be ordered from

Stauropegion Press
PO Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

My copy arrived earlier today and I've not yet had time to read it, but I've noticed that the 12 October 2004 proposed Liturgy, stated to be the final version, is given in the Appendix.

But I have a request in return - please write lots more questions in the same wonderful genre!

Incognitus

I thank Father David for his post.

I am really trying to take Father David’s post based upon what he says. I can only try to understand what he means by the words he chooses to use. If they are arbitrary I can only ask him to clarify (which I have done repeatedly) or (eventually) just guess.

I will look forward to reading Father David’s review. I look forward even more to Archimandrite Serge’s book and the spirited discussion that will certainly follow here on the Forum. Archimandrite Serge is known to support the official liturgy. I hope that his book provides much information with which we can convince the bishops (or, as a last resort, Rome) to redirect the proposed Revised Liturgy to be literally faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik.

The fact that the first Slovak edition eliminated the epiclesis puts it into first place as the most horrible Liturgcion in recent years. It is my opinion that the currently proposed Revision of the Divine Liturgy is not as bad but definitely in the same category for its unfaithfulness to the 1942 Sluzhebnik.

Regarding the first Slovak edition, it was rather horrible since it apparently eliminated the epiclesis. In its own way the current proposed Revision is almost as bad. There is no hysteria in this opinion and I hold it with legitimacy.


Father David’s premises are not logical as he presents it. The historical data show that the anaphora prayers were already prayed quietly while the language the Liturgy was prayed in was still the vernacular (Father David’s presentation does not address this point). A valid logic flow is as follows:

A. The Liturgy was celebrated in the vernacular (Greeks could understand it and those who could read could read the texts with understanding).
B. The Anaphora prayers started to be prayed quietly while the Liturgy was celebrated in the vernacular (Greeks could still understand it and those who could read could still read the texts with understanding).

C. The idea that the Anaphora (and other presbyteral prayers) only went silent after the language ceased to be the vernacular is false.

It is always the case that the one proposing change (especially mandated change) needs to provide the supporting data. I challenge Father David to provide a list of the “many” Byzantine jurisdictions that have mandated the praying aloud of the Anaphora and/or other presbyteral prayers. Even one will do for a start. He has been asked this numerous times and never responds to this point. As I stated earlier, the custom that might exist in some local parishes (Catholic or Orthodox) does not – at best – even qualify to count for more than 1% of all Byzantine Christians. One cannot mandate change that is not actually already widespread and consider it to be organic development. If Father David cannot produce a list of jurisdictions that have issued a Liturgicon that mandates this practice then he really cannot justly use the term “many”.

I agree that there is really nothing new under the sun. I trust Father David when he says that some of what he proposes originated in the 19th century. Some of his other proposals seems to have originated in the aftermath of the Vatican II reform of the Latin Rite Liturgy. We know certainly that the ideas from the 19th century have either generated no traction or have been for the most part soundly rejected. We certainly do not see any other jurisdiction mandating such changes. I again ask Father David to provide a listing of jurisdictions which have revised the Liturgicon to include his suggested reforms. Until such time these ideas can only be considered innovations.

I am not sure that Father David does hold the principle of faithfulness to the Ruthenian recension. When the yardstick you use is not the official recension itself (or scholarship showing a more authentic practice from before the union) then one really cannot claim this principle. The Ruthenian recension is contained in the official 1942 Sluzhebnik. That is the yardstick. Father David’s proposed revisions are far from the official books. The “spirit of the recension” like the “spirit of the age” is nothing more than personal opinion. It quickly becomes dated. It is much better to go with the 1942 Sluzhebnik. I am still unclear as to why Father David is so adamantly opposed to trying it for a generation or two. In the few places where it is being attempted we can see it drawing new people into the Church.

First, if a generation still counts as 25 years I certainly hope to be alive at the end of two more generations! It is not unthinkable!

Second, Father David has not proven that a faithful celebration of the official 1942 Sluzhebnik is in any way a “dereliction of our generation’s duty to be faithful” to our tradition.

Third, the idea that we need to be faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik is not my personal idea. It comes from Rome. All of the documentation supports the call for us to reclaim and live our heritage without change. I’ve quoted extensively from the official documents and Father David has simply not responded to anything the Vatican states that disagrees with his opinion. Anyone who reads the documents produced by Rome easily see that what Father David is proposing is something not supported by the Vatican directives.

Context! Context! Context! Americans are not quite stupid as Father David appears to think they are. When one sees two doors, one marked “men” and the other marked “women” one knows that they are providing separate facilities for men and women. When one enters a smaller restaurant and sees a door marked “toilet” (or, more often now, those little symbols that have both a man and a woman on them) one knows that the facility is a unisex restroom.

Regarding “inclusive language”, I do not fear it. I know it to be wrong. The Vatican has spoken extensively to this and teaches that it is wrong. Here in these discussions I have quoted extensively from the Vatican documents. Each time Father David has chosen not to respond.

Liturgiam Authenticam states (section 30) “When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.”

Father David appears to be rejecting Vatican teaching on this issue. I hope he will provide us with an explanation or clarification of his position.

In “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal” from 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, emeritus prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was quite clear in stating: ”…the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term ‘men’ has effects that are theologically grave. This text ’For us and for our salvation’-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The ‘us’ thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.”

The Vatican clearly teaches us that to omit the inclusive term “men” has effects that are “theologically grave”. Replacements like “for us and our salvation” instead of “for us men and our salvation” are exclusive and theologically ambiguous. Rome has condemned the usage that Father David advocates. And he suggests that I am forcing my personal opinion upon the Church?

I was pretty clear and I invite anyone who is curious to go back and read what I posted. It is true that many of the litanies were not prayed in all (or even many) parishes (I have stated this repeatedly in these discussions). Yet with the 1965 Liturgicon it was still possible for priests to pray them. With the editions of the Liturgicon that Father David has either prepared or contributed to we see missing litanies. The possibility of praying these litanies disappears unless one keeps another Liturgicon handy. Father David is certainly the champion of removing these litanies from the books, and especially in the 2004 proposed Revised Divine Liturgy.

Father David’s quote from the Gettysburg needs explanation. My point – to repeat it again – is that “the best that they could” comes across as one of contempt since Father David’s proposed reforms do not strive to make the official recension books more faithful. In fact they strive to take us in another direction altogether, away from our recension and away from the rest of Byzantium. How can you respect something you are running away from?

If Father David were to say “Christ is Risen!” that would be very clear and I could easily respond. But Father David might consider that what he means might not be coming across in what he writes. When I see Father David championing things the Vatican has rejected it is both wise and reasonable to ask him to fully document each of his proposed revisions to our Liturgy.

There is no desperation in what I write or feel (only some minor frustration). I know that the 1942 Sluzhebnik will someday be the standard in our Church. We have survived the past generations who kept us from our authentic tradition. We will survive the current efforts. When we are faithful to our own tradition we will thrive. We can see this in those few places where attempts to celebrate our tradition in its fullness. They are growing.

Admin

Elitoft wrote:
How neat to round up the politicians and lawyers. But in reality, Fr. David's wish, I would think applies more aptly to everyone but those stereotypes. It is those who want a to gain some specific outcome, independent of objective truth, who like to conduct arguments undisciplined by logic and with tendentious twists of words.

And btw, you may are wrong about the "the rest of us". While I have been largely in agreement, at the level of personal preferences, with the Administrator on these threads, I have found the general discourse, sometimes including his, too often flawed and occasionally just irresponsible, IMO. As to the rest of the rest:

Well no wonder! Perhaps, people should post with disclaimers as to whether their discourse is "normal" or not. Perhaps those that know better, can actually help advance the discourse by clarifying rather than muddying the waters of discourse. Classical logical validity is a requisite of a sound argument, but, of course, it is not a guarantee of truth; that also requires the truth of the premises. (If 2+2=5, then I am the pope; logically valid, but I am nevertheless not the pope.)

If the argument is valid and the conclusion is suspect, then let's discuss the verity of the premises rather than introducing some humpty-dumpty view of logic, itself. The latter tactic may be useful to taint an argument without having to do the heavy lifting of verifying premises, but it is flawed, and clarifies nothing; maybe that's the point.

It is certainly why I remain in the discussion, and why I characterize the discussion as often irresponsible. You are suggesting that there is a growing threat of an informed rebellion against this ostensibly secret liturgy. Go figure!

How has this happened?

Has the meme of assimilating this work to all of the problems of the Latins caught hold?

Have the claims of EVIL inclusive language - regardless of what is actually written in LA - caught hold, and with them the nasty allegation that our Bishops are nuts, inspired by the evil one, and/or catering to feminists who want to destroy our church?

Has the insidious tactic of scapegoating Fr. Petras - what a fantastic insult to the intelligence of the many others involved in this work - and transforming this matter into an issue of his personal preferences, which hold other works in "contempt" gained traction?

Has the very innovative idea that the project is tainted by the lack of lay participation - while the level of particpation probably larger than ever before in our church - caught hold?

Has the idea that this work represents disobedience to Rome - an idea that has been tendentiously raised in the past to justify disobedience to bishops - caught on?

And so forth. It is not as a means to advance ANY particular outcomes that I disagree with these tactics. As I said, my personal preferences are mostly in line with administrator's (except I would really prefer more Slavonic). But I can't go along with this highly politicized rhetoric, IMO, which fans the embers of discontent into the flames of rebellion.

djs

That may require a classical use of language.

I'm all for it!

I cannot find this new liturgy. Is it online or isn't it. I checked Father's blog and couldn't find it. Where is it? What's the point of being in a discussion about nothing? Where is this liturgy? Why isn't it posted to some link? Where is it? That lack of visibility is at the crux of the problem. Show the liturgy.

CDL

Dear CDL - go back to page 2, look at my last posting on that page (it's the second posting from the bottom of the page) and you will find where you can order the just-published book which includes the text of the "final version" of the Chrysostom Liturgy as proposed by the IELC in October 2004 - the rest of the book is a critique of that version.

Dear djs - don't worry; most of us can probably tell when somebody is not engaged in normal discourse. But you might wish to remember the story of the poor man who thought he was a worm. [As in Psalm 21:6 :But I am a worm, and not a man). He spent several years in a mental hospital, and was pronounced cured and released.

As he was leaving, carrying his suitcase, the hospital staff and his friends were waving good-bye as he walked to the front gate to catch the bus. Suddenly, as he approached the front gate, he dropped the suitcase, turned round, and ran back to the mental hospital, looking ashen-grey with terror.

The Nurse, alarmed, asked what was wrong. The man gasped: "just outside the gate - CHICKENS!"

The Nurse replied: "Now John, stop this. You're cured. You know perfectly well that you're not a worm. There's nothing to be afraid of."

John answered: "Yes, I know that I'm not a worm. But do the chickens know it?

Incognitus

I heard that the Sisters of St. Basil the Great have a fair amount of influence over the wording of Liturgical texts. I realize from the list of participants of the IELC that none are present on the committee, so does anyone know if there is any truth to this statement? Could they be the "feminist" influence?

I find this second post from djs to be of far greater substantive depth and merit than his first.

I do wish that he and Father David would add something of substance to the substantive observations and questions that now litter the floor of this topic, rather than carping about florid language in more florid language, rather than complaining about not being attended to while ignoring direct and salient questions and observations.

Add a certain weakness to their rebuttals.

Eli

This runs a grave risk of falling into the category of wild speculation. Granted the Sisters did not do the translations for their series of private liturgical prayer books for the Holy Hours on their own, but these texts would most certainly be held up as exemplars of liturgical language, and be credited to the Sisters who print them, sell them and use them.

Orthodox clergy tend to respond quite favorably to them. One of them actually knew personally the priest who had translated much of the text in the Vespers book.

So this would, I think, just roil an already mirky murk.

Eli

This is irresponsible by both posters. I know many of the sisters and have great respect for them. It is fair to say that many of them have bought into the use of gender neutral language (as is evident from their publications, which are otherwise very good and extremely useful). It could also be fair to state that they do share witness with a certain extent with the secular feminists (believing some elements to be good). But it is wrong to suggest that they are somehow the “’feminist’ influence” behind the use of gender neutral language in the proposed Revised Liturgy.

I beg your pardon. The questions that I posed in my second post - first and third copies were deleted, problems with the upload - were lifted from postings on this forum. The quoted comments were, at the time of their posting, either objected to directly, or reported to moderators for action; there were no postings that recognized that the comments themselves are irreponsible. So I am perplexed, why is repeating them considered so?

It is interesting to know that the new Slovak(sic) Recension has rubrics for "the opening and closing of the Royal Doors". I have to laugh as most churches in Slovakia have removed their Deacon Doors. Maybe they need to add rubric about Deacon Doors :p !

Ungcsertezs (The doors, the doors, where art thou Deacon Doors?)

Forum Note:

One of the posters asked me to delete his post because it did not really contribute anything. It seemed wise to also delete those posts which responded to his post. But it appears I have accidentally deleted one too many posts (even Father Anthony’s). If I deleted your post by accident please post your thoughts again.

Admin

Finally!! We are having fun!!

Eli

Admin,

Have you read the book:
Goodbye, Good Men

If not it is a great read.

OOPS !

Father David,

With all do respect can you please explain to me why you are spending your time with Liturgical revisions?

Thanks!
Ray
Florida

First, why so defensive? I received that tidbit of information from two reliable sources, so I was not pulling it out of thin air. It's a plausible question, as they are women and women are feminine. Nothing else was implied. A very straightforward question. Geez.............

Ray,

To answer your question “…please explain to me why you are spending your time with Liturgical revisions?” - Fr. David is Professor of Liturgy at Sts. Cyril & Methodius Seminary – it’s what he does, and I suspect just might be why he was appointed to the Liturgy Commission.

Although I do not agree with Fr. David’s position on the liturgy revision matter, I must say I am quite saddened by the seeming lack of respect shown him by some posters to this and the previous thread these past few days. A wise man once said: “Even if you are not a peacemaker, at least do not be a troublemaker.” (St. Isaac of Nineveh) [There, I managed to get in my weekly quotation quota of my patron. :p ]

Especially since the IELC "rolled back" much of the inclusive language in the Sisters books. ("Blessed is the one", etc.) The Basilian translations and those of the IELC have a number of individual quirks - for example, the Basilian texts tend to change relative clauses into separate sentences much more often.

But it is certainly true that a lot of groundbreaking work was done by the Sisters of Saint Basil the Great, and their work came across (to me, at least) as much less "ideological" than the vast majority of such work done by nuns in the Latin orders. May God prosper all our religious!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

There are almost twenty examples of the type of inclusive language forbidden by the Vatican in the Revised Divine Liturgy.

With something as exacting as liturgical text, how does one get almost 20 examples of something?

This is the kind of slippery thinking and referencing from both sides that makes this discussion so painful to follow or to contribute to in any meaningful way.

Eli

*shrug* I stand by what I said, Nick. Since the Fathers point to Psalm 1 as referring to the Messiah, translating the opening line as "Blessed is the one" rather than "Blessed is the man" is a rather serious issue.

On the other hand, "mankind" does not, as far as I can tell, really unite the individual and the collective. Have you ever had a couple of mankind in your office? The Sisters used "humankind", which has the same fault. "Us all" does combine the individual and collective connotations, at the cost of being TOO large a collective (I think the "all" likely negates much of the "it only include Christians" problem - but are the angels included, etc.?)

As I asked earlier - if anyone knows of inclusive language issues other than the translation of celovikolubce and its variants as "lover of us all", and "us" versus "us men" in the Creed, please send me a PM. I couldn't find any, so it looks like the "almost 20" reduces to two specific translation issues. I have heard people complaining for 20 years about "Blessed is the One", and personally I was glad to see the IELC stick to the literal rendering.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I don't have to go to my office for that. I attend liturgy every Sunday morning with members of mankind.

I can tell just by looking that these beloved members of mankind are all highly individual, I can recognize almost instantly that each on fits into general categories of babes, youth, boys, girls, men, women, clergy, laity, alive and/or dead.

There is a component of a kind of movement into membership that is crucial to building community that can be found in who loveth all, who loveth man, who loves mankind.

The movement is a drawing into community by the mysterious WHO calling out to us in, with and through Love, an actioin which is totally lost in the static English rendering of "lover of us all."

There is no call and response movement inherent in the latter phrase and therefore no poetry as well as loss of meaning.

Also, and probably first in consideration, is that in this phrasing the WHO, the One Who Loveth, the great I AM, is reduced to a nominal predicate adjective modifying the US who is loved, and so the focus is on the objective US who is loved, and not the subjective I AM , of the great and loving, I AM, which is a modernist innovation in the worst kind of a way.

And finally and least important except in terms of wanting to participate in the language of liturgy, "lover of us all" is simply ugly and banal phrasing esthetically, the verbal equivalent of the visual difference between a temple and a cowshed.

The current translation as it stands is far worse a thing that "inclusive." It is modernist and stands outside the Tradition of the Church. IT is lousy Catechesis and Mystagogy.

Eli

Dear Eli,

You ask "With something as exacting as liturgical text, how does one get almost 20 examples of something?"

Actually that can occur in at least one legitimate way: even in the New Testament (let alone the Old Testament) there are a fair number of disputed passages, to say nothing of words and phrases. So it is possible to be confronted with "almost x examples of something", the precise number depending on whether one is referring to the textus receptus or a critical text. Sounds weird, but it happens!

Incognitus

Oh yes. That seems to be making clear sense to me in general terms. But does that apply in this case? I guess I spoke too generally when I should have focused more on this particular instance. I don't see here a critical text and a received text or am I missing something? Again.

Eli

Dear Eli - I'm not quite sure which text is under discussion. But I can look (using a magnifying glass) at the proposed revised text of the Divine Liturgy and see what it has to offer in the way of "inclusive language". Even there, some questions can be raised - are we speaking, as I would, of all "inclusive language", or are we ignoring what is sometimes called "horizontal inclusive language".

It is not quite nonsense to talk about the "received text" of the Divine Liturgy, even though there are actually several, depending on the Local Church. I've never yet seen much by way of attempts to provide a critical text (apart from Trempelas in Greek), although a few editions at least footnote the scriptural references, which is a help.

Incognitus

At this point I believe I would need a microscope and projector.

What omniscient humor deigns to remove one's eyesight at the very time in life when they finally have the courage to open their eyes and actually take a look?

In the case of the putative inclusive translation of celovikolubce, said translation is much moreproperly said to be upside down, and backwards than it is horizontal. I think we need to expand our categories!!

Sye

I would love a pew book which offered Scriptural references, the full text of all optional texts, rubrics and historical glosses on the rubrics. I might even pay good money for such a wonder, depending, of course on how celovikolubce is translated!!

Eli

Ayeeee

See what I mean about fowl humors?

Eli

We need to keep in mind that it is not only the text of St. John Chrysotom's Liturgy that has be revised, but also that of St. Basil, the Pre-Sanctified, and the propers (changeable parts; i.e., troparia, kontakia, prokeimena, etc.) There was probably less scrutiny in the development of these texts because of their greater volume.

Can you imagine what they may have done to these texts?

Eli - Christ With Us, published by the Ukrainian Exarchate around 1954, fits your description - it gives all the rubrics and the complete texts, the scriptural references (including one hilarious gaffe) and the Church-Slavonic text parallel to the English.

It was done in a pew-book version which is too small to be easily read and an "altar book" which is of convenient size, much more easily read, and includes the Prothesis. Obviously, I recommend the "altar book" - it's not too big for use in the pews. And since the price has not increased since the book appeared 50+ years ago, it's no longer unbearably expensive. The translation is not perfect, but it's also not polemical.

Incognitus

The festal propers from the proposed Divine Liturgies book are in the monthly Menaion on the Metropolitan Cantor Institute Publications page. (The proposed book also has weekday and common propers; the common propers are used in the Menaion as well, as needed. The Menaion contains more than is in the Divine Liturgies book, of course.)

These propers have been distributed on request for the past two years, and posted on the website for the past year (and mentioned on this forum).

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. There IS a reason we put these texts out and ask for comments and questions.

Please save for me the time I would spend rooting around here in the archives, and direct me to a supplier? And thank you for the recommendation.

I wanted to thank you for your kind and mysterious words from yesterday but did not wish to interrupt that flow of ideas so I begged your pardon and thanked you in silence.

I did also wish you to know that I have no natural talent and so am highly unpredictable and totally at the mercy of inspiration.

Eli

My interest in all of this is how it will affect our growth more than the correctness of the translation. Although I don't like gender nuetral language and strongly agree that its use is incorrect in most cases and damaging to the integrity of the work I'm even more interested in seeing how the effects of such potentially politically motivated changes have upon the people. So far it has caused something of a groundswell of protest. I pray that the protest will result in growth for our Church.

Whether or not "the" Orthodox approve of this translation seems to be a mystery. Some have indicated that "they" have. Some have indicated that "they" have not. I hope our leaders are wise and get such approval or if they do not will state such and withdraw or modify the translation. Even more importantly this new recension seems to me to be an excellent occasion for pan Eastern Catholic cooperation. Is this recension in keeping with other Eastern Catholic particularly Byzantine Catholic recensions? Have scholars from these other Churches been part of the process? Can it be used as a way to bring some kind of cooperation among the Eastern Catholic Churches at least in America? If not, why not?

CDL

As for the book I suggested, last time I looked (which is a few years ago, I must admit) Eastern Christian Publications was selling them - again, specify the altar edition.

Didn't know I'd written any kind, mysterious words yesterday, but anyway I'm glad you enjoyed them!

Incognitus

If this seems like I'm a bit frustrated it's because I am. Perhaps everyone is. But how can there be so much debate over something we know so little about? Second, after two years why is so little known? Does no one know how this translation process took place? Does no one know if the other Eastern Catholic Churches have had any input into this? Does anyone really know who in Orthodoxy not in communion with Rome approves of this translation? Does anyone know why in the world this translation hasn't been widely disseminated if the eparchy is serious about it? Does anyone know why it was done in the first place?

CDL

Checked the entire catalogue without any luck at all, sad to say.

And your words were kind and encouraging me to more flights of fancy. I don't know if I can comply without completely falling out of character, or away from what is characteristic.

Eli

If this is the battle that must be fought in order that renewal begins then so be it. Let it begin in earnest.

CDL

Or in the opening line of Green Pastures, "Let the fish fry pro-ceed!"

Incognitus

Isaac, good points above. Charitable respect for profession, clergy, and vocation should always reign in these forums. We can have a dialogue in a professional manner - and at least that is finally starting to occur - without any personal attacks on this or that person.

To continue, what is really ironic is that I was given the proposed changes to the Latin-rite Mass text by our local Latin diocesan liturgy officer, who is a good friend. He didn't have to, but he did, as a courtesy to fellow Catholic clergy. He was instructed to share it with "all of the clergy" and he took that seriously, regardless of ritual Church. I was even asked for my comments, but declined as I do not celebrate as a Latin deacon.

I couldn't reciprocate with ours nor comment - as I myself have not seen anything officially submitted to clergy, even in a draft form from the hierarchy. It even seems now from another thread that what some on this Forum considered the "draft" is not the most current "draft", and apparently changes have already been made to the changes.

The simple logistics of getting the proposed Latin changes in the hands of so many is orders of magnitude, light-years of effort above and beyond getting it to at least a few clergy in our Church. No one including myself is reasonably advocating "liturgical democracy", but also something less shocking than a box in the mail with directions to use a new Liturgikon and text is likewise reasonable for those who will be charged with filial obediance to celebrate, use, and defend a new lex orandi.
FDD