What does everyone think about Vladyka Basil's vision for the BCC?

http://www.archeparchy.org/page/bcw-online/BCW_PDF06/BCW_26nov06_pg_05_web.pdf

It's very encouraging to see our Metropolitan leading the charge on real renewal for our Church.

Mnohaja l'ita Vladyka Basil!

Privet Vostoichnik!
John, I read the article on Vladika Vasily, twice, but I honestly cannot say what he is proposing. Can you expound on what you gathered from this article?

Alexandr

What I got from it:

1) He's going to close or merge some parishes
2) He doesn't care about how things should be or for visions of the future, preferring to deal with how they are and what he's doing right now.
3) He intends to improve communication among all levels
4) He wants churches to not be ethnic
5) He wants churches to be highly involved in their local communities and politics (re: pro-life?)/civics (Christmas parades?)
6) He wants churches to foster community and to be welcoming to visitors
7) He's proud of the work of the new/revised liturgy because it is finally done after so many gave of themselves for it for so long
8) He expects everyone to get on board with the new/revised liturgy
9) He really doesn't want to remain ethnic and wants people to get over it and share the Gospel of Christ and their temples with non-Rusyns.
10) He wants to use technology wherever he can.

Is that what anyone else saw?

A few thoughts ...

A.) As hard as it is going to be, I don't see how we can skirt closing or merging some parishes. We once had two parishes near Chicago and one mission. Now, we have one very strong parish that is thriving.

B.) The church should always have a Rusyn soul ... it's in our DNA. I don't see Vladyka advocating that we abandon that.

C.) The fact that the BCC saw the need to "codify liturgical and musical texts" is good. It is an opportunity to restore and partake of more of our authentic Eastern Christian traditions. I'm still praying that somehow this will happen.

"He expects everyone to get on board with the new/revised liturgy"

Apparently he doesn't read this board very often!

Actually, I think he does, which might explain many things.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What does he mean by this since the proposed reformation of the Divine Liturgy is inauthentic? It will make us different from other Byzantine / Greek Catholics.


How can the Archbishop say that it has been worked on by the whole metropolia? The clergy were not consulted. The cantors were not consulted. The laity were not consulted. To this day the clergy of Passaic still do not have a copy of either the proposed changed Divine Liturgy or the proposed rewritten music. The whole process has been nothing more than a two-man show. Doesn't he realize that 90% of the church is united AGAINST this revison?


No. Not as long as the bicycle is on the edge of a cliff and facing the edge.

I very much doubt that the Archbishop reads this forum. If he did he would know that the proposed liturgical rewrite is based upon poor theology.

]


I would think this means that all of our churches must finally look like Byzantine Churches, not Latin churches. There are still those out there with no Icon Screens, etc.

As for ethnicity, I don't see where he really wants to rid us of our identity. I do see where he wants us to be open to accepting new faces. "Our People" has to take on new meaning. We've been in this country for over a century. Massive Eastern European immigration isn't going to repeat itself, and if it does you can bet they won't be Greek Katliks.

We should look into why it can sometimes take YEARS in a particular eparchy before a person/family is permitted to 'change rites'. Is this realistic? It doesn't take years in say an Orthodox church if a Protestant wants to convert. Why is the waiting period sometimes 5 years or more for Catholic-to-Catholic? This attitude impedes our growth. If we make even a Catholic wait years, how do we readily open ourselves up to those who are non-churched or those of other faiths?

We need to walk the Gospel walk. 'Go forth and teach all nations' is quite different from 'Sit and wait, then be very selective'.

Sam

With all due respect, what is he talking about when the article says:
"At the same time, he stressed that the church should be an 'authentic place of worship... that should reflect that we are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church."

And yet Parma, where he was Bishop, and Pittsburgh where he is Bishop, 90%+ of our parishes have no Vespers.

90%+ have no Matins.

Some churches are using pre-cut particles and completely skipping Proskomedia.

Need I go on? Do I need to rant and rave about kneeling on Sundays? Do I need to bring up confessionals and stations of the Cross? etc.

I don't understand this.

If there's one person on the planet who could lead us to restoration and 'authentic place of worship... that should reflect that we are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church' it is him. I know, I know, I can hear those who will ask exactly what I've done to bring about restoration and since I haven't gone to every church in Parma and Pittsburgh that I haven't done enough. Yeah, yeah. You can't ignore what I wrote. You know as well as I do that he is the one who could bring authentic worship. He's had authority over two eparchies to bring authentic worship.

When I hear him say this and see what goes on, I have to conclude that his idea of 'authentic place of worship' is completely different than what Tradition calls for.

I'm supposed to be happy with the progress over the last ten years? Maybe when I'm 311 years old restoration will be complete? Come on, you who publicly disagree with me know in your hearts I'm right. Every church should have Vespers, every church should have Matins. No pre-cut particles. etc.

I agree with what Archbishop Basil said, that we should have an 'authentic place of worship... that should reflect that we are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church." But actions speak louder than words.

Monomakh

My Orthodoxy is flaring up again. Monomakh brings up good points that always seem to go unanswered. I must admit that part of the reason I converted was because of a longing for the correct expression of the Byzantine rite.

Might I suggest to all non Orthodox posters here, to spend a weekend visiting an Orthodox parish in your area. Compare the two, and see what you think.

And before I get accused of proselytizing, I'm merely trying to point out to others what they are missing liturgically.

Unfortunately, without Proskomedia, the Liturgy is not valid. The Liturgy is comprised of three parts:

I) the Proskomedia,

II) the Liturgy of the Catechumens, and

III) the Liturgy of the Faithful

To omit one is to invalidate the entirety.


Proskomedia is a Greek word meaning offering. The first part of the Liturgy derives its name from the early Christian custom of the people offering bread and wine and all else that was needed for the Liturgy. Therefore, each small loaf of the bread which is used in it is termed a "prosphora," another word meaning offering. This bread or prosphora must be leavened, pure, and made of wheat flour. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, for the celebration of the Mystery of Holy Communion, used leavened, not unleavened bread, as is clear from the Greek word used in the New Testament. The prosphora must be round and formed in two parts, one above the other, as an image of the two natures of Jesus Christ, divine and human. On the flat surface of the upper part a seal of the Cross is impressed, and in the four sections thus formed are the initial Greek letters of the name of Jesus Christ, "IC XC," and the Greek word "NIKA," which mean together "Jesus Christ conquers."

The wine used in the Mystery must be red grape wine, as this color reminds us of the color of blood. The wine is mixed with water to remind us of the pierced side of the Savior from which flowed blood and water on the Cross. Five prosphoras are used in the Proskomedia to recall the five loaves with which Christ miraculously fed the five thousand, an event which gave Him the means to teach the people about spiritual nourishment, about the incorrupt, spiritual food which is bestowed in the Mystery of Holy Communion (John 6:22-58). One prosphora, known as the Lamb, is used for Holy Communion, in accordance with the words of the Apostle: "For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread" (I Cor. 10: 17).

The Proskomedia is performed by the priest in a quiet voice at the Table of Preparation when the sanctuary is closed. During its celebration, the Third and Sixth Hours are read.

The priest takes the first prosphora and with a small spear makes the sign of the Cross over it three times, saying the words, "In remembrance of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ." The priest then cuts a cube out of the center of this prosphora with the spear (a small, wedge-shaped knife) and pronounces the words of the Prophet Isaiah: "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people was He stricken" (Is. 53:7-8).

This cube-shaped portion of the prosphora, called the Lamb (John 1:29), is placed on the diskos, a metal plate. Then the priest cuts a cross in the bottom of the Lamb while saying the words, "Sacrificed is the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, for the life of the world and its salvation." He then pierces the right side of the Lamb with the spear, saying the words of the Evangelist, "One of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith there came out blood and water. And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true" (John 19:34). In accordance with these words wine is poured into the chalice mixed with water.

From the second prosphora, the priest cuts out one portion in honor of the Virgin Mary and places it on the right side of the Lamb on the diskos. From the third prosphora, which is called "that of the nine ranks," are taken nine portions in honor of the saints, John the Forerunner and Baptist, the prophets, the Apostles, the hierarchs, the martyrs, the monastic saints, the unmercenary physicians, the grandparents of Jesus, Joachim and Anna, the saint who is celebrated that day, the saint to whom the church is dedicated, and finally the saint who composed the liturgy being celebrated. These portions are placed on the left side the Lamb. From the fourth prosphora, portions are removed for the hierarchs, the priesthood, and all the living. From the fifth prosphora, portions are taken for those Orthodox Christians who have reposed.

Finally, portions are removed from those prosphoras donated by the faithful, as the names of the health and salvation of living and for the repose of the dead. All these portions are placed on the diskos below the Lamb.

At the end of the Proskomedia the priest covers the bread with a metal asterisk (star) and then covers the diskos and chalice with special veils, censes the diskos and the chalice and prays that the Lord bless the offered Gifts and remember those who have offered them and those for whom they are offered.

The sacred instruments used and actions performed in the Proskomedia have symbolic meanings. The diskos signifies the caves in Bethlehem and Golgotha; the star, the star of Bethlehem and the Cross; the veils, the swaddling clothes and the winding sheet at the tomb of the Savior; the chalice, the cup in which Jesus Christ sanctified the wine; the prepared Lamb, the judgment, passion, and death of Jesus Christ; and its piercing by the spear, the piercing of Christ's body by one of the soldiers. The arrangement of all the portions in a certain order on the diskos signifies the entire Kingdom of God, whose members consist of the Virgin Mary, the angels, all the holy men who have been pleasing to God, all the faithful Orthodox Christians, living and dead, and, in the center its head — the Lord Himself, our Savior. The censing signifies the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, whose grace is shared in the Mystery of Holy Communion.

Commemoration Lists

So powerful is the Church's intercession that even the righteous have been known to appear in dreams to those still living to ask the Church's prayers. In view of the great spiritual benefit bestowed upon those commemorated during Divine Liturgy, we should be conscientious in giving the names of those dear to us and all those in special need of prayer to be read at she Proskomedia. Most churches provide special printed slips of paper (usually located near the candle counter) for this purpose. For longer lists of names commemorated regularly, it is recommended to use a booklet.

How should one write out commemoration slips or booklets to be read at the Proskomedia?

Separate lists should be made for the living and departed; these should be clearly marked at the top, either "For the health and salvation of the servants of God" or "For the repose of the souls of the servants of God".

Proper Christian names received at baptism should be used, no nicknames or shortened forms: i.e., Theodore, not Ted; Margaret, not Peggy.

Whether a booklet or a slip of paper is used, care should be taken that it is clean and neat, reflecting a reverent attitude towards the holiness of the liturgical commemoration. Papers should not be crumpled or full of messy erasures. Booklets with loose pages or broken staples should be replaced. The writing should be legible; it should not be so small, or the names written so close, as to be difficult to read; those with poor handwriting should print or ask someone's assistance. The priest should be allowed to concentrate on prayer, not on retrieving loose pages or deciphering illegible script.

At the Divine Liturgy only members of the Orthodox Church are commemorated, since the particles placed on the diskos represent the Holy Church, the body of Orthodox believers. Separate lists should be kept of non-Orthodox to be commemorated with appropriate prayers.

Lists and booklets should be regularly updated, i.e., when someone dies or is ordained. It is best to designate "newly-departed" in pencil which can more easily be erased after the 40th day.

Clergy should be given their proper title: not simply "Father" but Priest, Deacon, Hieromonk, Monk, Reader, etc. Ecclesiastical titles may be abbreviated: Metropolitan Met.; Archbishop Archbp.; Bishop Bp.; Archimandrite Archim.

Commemoration slips should be handed in at the candle counter as early as possible, preferably at the preceding vigil service. Once the Liturgy of the Catechumens has begun it is more difficult for the priest, particularly it he serves without a deacon, to read the commemorations, although strictly speaking he may do so up to the time of the Great Entrance.

Alexandr

Alexandr,

From the Catholic viewpoint the skipping of the Proskomedia would not invalidate the Liturgy, not that I would condone such a practice.

But that brings us to Monomahks accusation that it is skipped which I am not aware that it is "skipped". Some priests may do it much earlier than when it should be done so that it appears as if it was skipped to some, but I am not aware or heard tales of any skipping it outright.

When pre-cut particles are used there is still a Lamb upon which all the prayers are performed and the Proskomedia is otherwise performed in full except for physically removing the Lamb from the Prosphora.

It also allowed by Rome to use a single Prosphora rather than 5.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

The prescribed rubrics for the serving of the Divine Liturgy are laid down by St John Chrysostom himself. ANY deviation from what has been prescribed is at best liturgical innovation, and at worst, blasphemy. We are not talking about making soup here. This is the Holy Divine Liturgy, the Logos made incarnate, the Bloodless Sacrifice. The concept of precut particles is almost unbelievable to an Orthodox person who is reading this list. And to actually sell them, as described by Fr Serge at:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=15&Number=215047&Searchpage=1&Main=16075&Words=precut+particles&topic=0&Search=true#Post215047
is unbelievable. Such innovations only serve to drive wedges between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Deacon Lance, return to what is prescribed, and then you will truly celebrating the fullness of the faith.

Alexandr

[quote=Etnick][quote=Monomakh]With all due respect, what is he talking about when the article says:
"At the same time, he stressed that the church should be an 'authentic place of worship... that should reflect that we are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church."

And yet Parma, where he was Bishop, and Pittsburgh where he is Bishop, 90%+ of our parishes have no Vespers.

90%+ have no Matins.

b]
cough cough
90% ?!?

I'm speechless. Just had lunch. Now I have indigestion.
Uhhh -thanks for that news, Monomakh.

"Might I suggest to all non Orthodox posters here, to spend a weekend visiting an Orthodox parish in your area. Compare the two, and see what you think."

Etnick-
Good advice. It appears 90% of our people don't know what they're missing. Very sad, indeed
Sam

Alexandr,

The Liturgy has changed since the time of St. John Chrysostom, who certainly did not write the rubrics for the present Proskomedia.

It is not for me to return or abandon but to obey the priest with whom I serve. I can certainly voice my opinion but that is all.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, Deacon Lance, that is exactly what I and many on this list are doing, voicing our opinion on the need to return to, once again, "That which has been handed down to us". And the opinion of clergy such as yourself has more impact than the opinion of laymen. Voice your opinion, and work to correct the liturgical improprieties. Then, when the Byzantine Church is Orthodox in all but name, the Orthodox might take you seriously.

Alexandr

This is reminiscent of a previous thread where I had been asking some questions about this 'pre-cut' practice...

As described to me, a priest will have some bread pieces in a container of some sort, pour, spill, or otherwise transfer these pieces onto the paten, and then pray. Perhaps the description was a bit 'over the top' or possibly the practice of a new priest, but again it seems important to verify some things for my own understanding:

1. Which bread pieces does the priest have? Typically 13 pieces are needed, including the large excisions for the reposed and the living. Are they commemorated as well?

2. In the 'pre-cut' practice, which probably takes more care than as was described in that one post but so far I have no other information to go on, does the priest arrange the pieces to re-create a 'model of Heaven' under the asterisk?

3. What happens to the other portions of the bread that the 'pre-cuts' are taken from? Does the antidoron get produced from this so all can partake of the same loaf, symbolizing all being in the community?

4. And this is specific for Orthodox clergy like myself: if, some day, we all become one Church, should I expect such tampering with Tradition that I've lately been reading about from this site?

I mean, honestly---I have been called naive before, so those who know me are probably shaking their heads right now and saying "I told you so, Father...", but I took at face value the claim that Byzantine Catholics are 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.

However, increasingly from reading the posts at this site it seems like this description really is not the way it is. Worship teaches and directs us in how we should relate to God. If the traditions of the Church are not preserved to help guide and shape us like children at the knee of their Mother, as in this case of the proskomide, then you are not actually living as Orthodox people.

I hope to not be in trouble for saying such a thing, because I am not trying to create trouble, but perhaps my intellectual slowness prevents me from understanding how the Orthodox in communion with Rome statement can be a reality if, in fact, your hierarchs (which you must obey, as Fr. Deacon Lance correctly points out) do not permit you to live as Orthodox people.

Please, someone, explain this to me, or perhaps make a new thread for this question, because otherwise if re-union occurs and I am not permitted to live and worship in the way I know to be right (in other words, from reading this site it seems that the hierarchs will prevent me from living what I know to be true and right), then I don't know what I will do.

+Fr. Chris

Dear Father Chris,

You are not in trouble for the points made. I was hoping that these would be eventually brought into the discussion.

These are serious and straight forward questions being posed, and yet not being answered but instead being rounded or redirected. I am going to refuse to let this thread progress unless the questions asked are replied to in a knowledgeable way. These questions have been asked over and over in other threads and have been redirected or deflected to the shame of those doing it.

If these questions can not be answered in a straight forward and knowledgeable manner, then do not post a reply. I and many others that have been monitoring this section and am tired of seeing these questions posed, only to be ignored. As the moderator to this section I am going to be taking a different tactic in order for this matter to progress forward. If the answers can not be properly answered, any reply posts will be simply deleted until the answers are forthcoming. This is my right as a moderator, and I am invoking it.

I know that this will not please many on either side, but I believe this is necessary for any of these discussions to progress. If this means that posters will now have to start doing their homework before posting, fine so be it! The emotional bantering and avoidance of the questions presented will stop in this section. The shame is that that by the silence demonstrated by the side the supports the revisions in the previous two threads were this demand has also been made is to their shame since they demonstrate their true insensitivity to faithful and clergy alike by not answering anything in a forthright manner. This is done not only to those that post on this forum but to the many that also read the forum without posting.

I must also note that the tacit refusal to answer these points will eventually come back to haunt some. With the spirit of ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox Churches, I will assure you that these points will come up.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Father Chris and Father Anthony,

Would you consider making pre-cuts a thread of their own? I think there is enough to discuss about it to merit a separate discussion from the Metropolitan's speech. Is there anyone who would be willing to *support* or *defend* pre-cut particles? Fr. David Petras says on his site that he considers it the worst latinization in the BCC, and one he wishes to see go away. It is my opinion that this is something which obviously must be set aright across the board, and that has nothing to do with what the Orthodox would think or say (your point 4) but with what is needed for the Byzantine Catholics themselves. (Not to discount the Orthodox view, but to impress that it isn't problematic because the Orthodox say so but because it is a cheap and shoddy way of cutting corners on the one most important aspect of the priestly vocation: the Eucharist.)

Dear Wondering,

Talk is cheap in this case and the actions show little genuine correlation to the Metropolitan's speech. With all the scholarship that the proponents tout, their silence implies along with the Metropolitan's words little if any what truly bodes well for either church growth or in any future dialog towards reproachment with the Orthodox Churches. The questions asked are rather pointed, and their silence only reinforces shoddy scholarship and reinforce that the rhetoric towards being true their roots and laying aside of the fears of the Orthodox is in fact abandoning liturgical tradition among other things as well as being truly "Orthodox" in communion with Rome seems to imply. All they seem to be creating is the Novus Ordo of the Byzantine family of liturgies and only invite some of the problems that plagued the Roman Church since the introduction of that liturgical change.

The questions are still on the table, and I will not entertain any further posts on this thread unless it is in response to the points brought up by Father Chris.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Fr. Chris,

Please note my replies are based on my own experiences in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.

1. The priest has a Lamb about 2"x2"x1/4". He also has enough 1/4" cube particles to perform the proskomedia and extra particles to commune the faithful.

2. The particles are arranged properly.

3. It is reserved for Mirovanje, as most BC parishes do not give antidoron after every Liturgy

4. The Orthodox in Communion with Rome title is an ideal that most Greek Catholic Churches of any stripe have not earned unfortunately. There are certainly outstanding parishes here and there, the Russian parishes could probably not be distinguished from their Orthodox counterparts. But if someday there is union I would hope the example of the majority would win out.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Evangelizers,

The remarks of Archbishop Basil on renewal in the Byzantine Catholic Church are indeed encouraging. But they are also Providential:

The significant points of the Archbishop's address (as beautifully itemized in the post submitted by "Wondering,")were very much like those presented in 2003 to the clergy of the Eparchy of Parma by the Office of the Syncellus for Parish and Laity. In fact the process for renewal underway in the Archeparchyh was inspired by the impetus begun at this clergy convention in the Eparchy of Parma in 2003. The presenters at this convention included Deacon Dennis Prestash, Helen Kennedy, and professionals from Annunciation Byzantine Catholic parish in Homer Glen, IL. and finally myself as Pastor of Annunciation and Syncellus for Parish and Laity. The Archbishop's remarks were also very similar to remarks that I made in 2004 at the Archeparchy's Spiriutality conference in Monroeville,Pa. when I was invited to speak on parish renewal. The Archbishop's remarks were also very similar to the programs for renewal currently being undertaken by 90 Dioceses across America including the Diocese of Cleveland in their Vibrant Parishes program.(An article about this appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper during the week of Thanksgiving.) My point of all this: With so many saying (and in some cases actually doing) the same things in regard to renewal we must conclude that however frightening to some, with all emotion aside, this MUST be the voice of the Holy Spirit callng the Church in America, especially the Eastern Catholic Churches in America to the New Evangelization.

At the recent Encounter of the Eastern Churches that took place in Chicago,IL. the table talk was, as always among Eastern Churches that we are and for a long time have been "heomrraghing" people. The Eastern Churches are dying but that is not all bad. We can die by default or we can "implode" via a purposeful plan based on a vision and sense of mission and then "explode" again.

I see it all very Scripturally as many of you recall from my previous posts: The branches must be pruned, the seed must fall to the ground or remain just a seed. In my own words, "we must raze the Byzantine Church to the ground in order to rebuild it according to its authentic self." While this language is strong for some, it nevertheless is a postive message. I want the Eatern Churches to thrive, not just survive and "hang on" just for reasons of convenience, nostalgia or sentiment. The Eastern Churches have precisely what is needed in the modern Western world today but they must be radically, radically cleansed, reconfigured according to their authentic selves, according to a much more authencially Biblical model that is dynamic for our times. Our greatest enemy has been fear which of course is the opposite of faith and therefore, I personally have no use for it.

It is a very healthy thing for a Church to look honestly at itself. It is very unhealthy not to. In all honestly we have become a Church that many would rather go down with than face the challenge, the risk of charting a vibrant future. This is inexusable and we will get what we deserve.

I do not know about you, but I sure do not want to face Almighty God on Judgement Day when He asked us, "So, what happened to my Church? It seems to have disappeared. You were supposed to have stewarded it and brought souls to me through it. I went to alot of trouble to establish that Church. Now what happened to it?" Do we really think that its going to wash when we answer: "Ah, well, I was afraid that someone might get upset or not like me if I suggested changing things. You gotta understand, God, its alot of work and bother to change things. I just wanted the Church to be there for. After I died I didn't really care what happened to it. It was not my worry."

The remarks of Archbishop Basil are indeed encouraging. Now the Eastern Churches actually have to DO renewal. Admittedly, we may
"loose" some. But, if we loose people because they do not love this Church enough to bear with its renewal and growing pains then we did not really "have" these people to begin with. Renewal will test our metal, our faith. It will purify the reason that we are a member of an Eastern Church. Although we want all to come along, serious renewal is not for the faint of heart. But in the end, everyone wins.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB. MA.

Slava vo viki Boga!

In reviewing your posting, I am intriqued by your words:
"we must raze the Byzantine Church to the ground in order to rebuild it according to its authentic self."
It has been my policy to not assume anything anymore, but would this by any chance mean a total delatinization of the BCC, restoration of the full cycle of services and use of the Liturgy of the Ruthenien Recension as put forth by Rome in 1941?
My concern is that the initial steps would be done, statuary removed, along with the pews and stations of the Cross, iconostasi erected, and then instead of a properly translated edition of the Divine Liturgy, a Byzantine Novus ordo will be slipped in by those whose agenda that is. I agree that those who leave over abolition of both overt and subliminal latinizations will do so because they were never really there anyway, but of greater concern is the mindset of those that remain. There is a subliminal latinized mindset of many that I have observed, that frankly, is incompatible with the Eastern view. How deep do you intend to clean, how far will you prune? Would this result in the recreation of Orthodox in communion with Rome, as your Church was chartered, or will it be a new Eastern Roman rite, with innovations that are not Orthodox in concept or praxis? Your words that I find troubling are:
"The Eastern Churches have precisely what is needed in the modern Western world today but they must be radically, radically cleansed, reconfigured according to their authentic selves, according to a much more authencially Biblical model that is dynamic for our times." Forgive me Father, being the doubting Thomas that I am, but these words just have a very Protestant ring to them, which I find disconcerting.

As I see it, as one from the outside, looking in, is the ideal should be that the ONLY difference between a Byzantine Rusyn (Ruthenian is a latinization!)Catholic church and an Orthodox church is which bishop is commemerated. That must always be the goal. Anything less and the Latinizers win.

Alexandr

"As I see it, as one from the outside, looking in, is the ideal should be that the ONLY difference between a Byzantine Rusyn (Ruthenian is a latinization!)Catholic church and an Orthodox church is which bishop is commemerated. That must always be the goal. Anything less and the Latinizers win."

Bravo Alexandr!

My two months as a new convert to the Orthodox church has been a real spiritual awakening.

A full cycle of regular weekly services, (VESPERS on Saturday WITHOUT Liturgy), an hour and a half Liturgy on Sunday, (One liturgy only!) have really made me appreciate the Christian east. I should have done this years ago after seeing that pre cut proskomidia fiasco without an icon screen and the altar boy ringing the sanctus bells! Oh well...

I will continue to pray for the Greek Catholic Church to recover their roots, as people that are dear to me belong to it.

I suggest that everyone look at this article that was posted in the initial post in this thread:

http://www.archeparchy.org/page/bcw-online/BCW_PDF06/BCW_26nov06_pg_05_web.pdf


The part that is still the most confusing here is this part:
"At the same time, he stressed that the church should be an 'authentic place of worship... that should reflect that we are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church."

If Archbishop Basil wants us to be an 'authentic place of worship' then how, as I pretty much learned today, can the cathedral in Munhall not have Vespers and Matins. As far as I know they have a full time priest and a qualfied cantor. What possbile excuse can there be not to celebrate these services? Can anybody that attends the cathedral in Munhall clarify this and confirm that these services do not take place.

Monomakh

I love the ending about pedaling with the church. Since I converted to Holy Orthodoxy I feel like I'm on a Harley!!!

I'm honestly happy for you.

But for us that are still here there are some important questions to get answers to.

I for one am trying to figure out why in world a parish like the Cathedral in Munhall with a full time pastor and a very qualified cantor don't celebrate Vespers and Matins. How can one call upon us to have an 'authentic place of worship' and yet ignore important services such as these? I still haven't heard one good reason why this is so.

Monomakh

Monomakh wrote:

I think part of the reason, as I have been told, is due to the fact that people in Pennsylvania are afraid of the word orthodox. Let's face it, having those services will bring us closer to orthodoxy and that is uncomfortable for our brethren in Pennsylvania.

Coming from a parish in the Archdiocese, to one in the Parma Eparchy, I was shocked at the differences. When I questioned my pastor he said it was due to a former Archbishop who loved Latinizing the Byzantine Church. Any time he "ran into" an Eastern priest, he shipped them off to the hinterlands, which was anything outside of his "territory." So, Pittsburgh and the rest of the state stayed highly Latinized, while the places West became more Eastern. (ByzKat, if I am wrong on this, please correct me!)

I have noticed in my own home parish that the tide is beginning to change....however slowly it may go. Many, many priests know what to do, I suspect though they don't get much support.

Why the Cathedral isn't setting the "Byzantine" example is beyond me. My own Cathedral still kneels at the consecration and at the communion prayer. Go figure.

I think we need to "grow" our seminarians better, with education on what it truly means to be Eastern. From the priests I've seen being ordained, I think the future looks bright. However, lest I start an uproar, it seems to be that the men who convert and come to our seminary from the Latin church are the most Eastern. Maybe the former Latins will end up saving us -- wouldn't that be a hoot? Has anyone else experienced this?

This has been bothering me all day. What will become of us Byzantine Catholic Rusyns? It seems like no one wants us to survive ... let alone thrive.

If you mean people outside the BCC, I would disagree with that statement.

I really want to see the church I left survive. My Father and Mother belong to it. They brought me into it, but I did what I felt was right by converting to the Orthodox church. I continue to pray for the Greek Catholic Church to get with it, do what's right, and spread the word of the Christian East.

Since my name was invoked - with regard to the selling of pre-cut particles of bread for use in the pseudo-Prothesis - perhaps I may comment.

The selling of bread crumbs is not in itself shocking or immoral. What is outrageous is the use of pre-cut particles for the Divine Liturgy instead of loaves of prosphora or a reasonable equivalent.

The assertion that Saint John Chrysostom himself personally wrote the rubrics for the Divine Liturgy has no conceivable basis in fact - take it from a Typiconchik and rubricist.

The use of various particles on the Discarion is different in any number of sources and current practices (check the Old Rite service-books or the pre-Nikonian Kyivan service books for examples). It is probable, although not quite certain, that the currently more common arrangement dates from well after the beginning of the 2nd millennium - the texts we have from before that period only give the prayer "O God, our God, Heavenly Bread and Food for the whole world . . .". That is not an argument for something which I once - and thank God it was only once - beheld with my very own eyes: the priest at the last minute in the sacristy reaching into a plastic container, taking one hard-as-rock square bit of bread, putting it on the Discarion, pausing at the Prothesis Table to put some wine and water in the chalice, veil chalice and Discarion, and then went straight to the Holy Table. I won't name him.

Fr. Serge

If it doesn't, I don't think you can look anywhere but the leadership of the church. Whether or not anyone outside the BCC wants it to survive, doesn't want it to survive, or is just oblivious I think doesn't matter.

Father and Father,

I have read your posts with interest especially as they call into question my own spiritual journey. Am I somehow being unfaithful to the Eastern spiritual tradition by coming into communion with the Pope of Rome and living my priestly life in submission to the bishop of the Eparchy of Parma? This a good and honest and important question. I want to leave aside the question of whether one can be Orthodox and in communion with Rome and address the issue of whether I have sold my Orthodox liturgical birthright for a bowl of Latinized soup.

I can answer this two ways. First, on an experiential level. In my experience over the last 5 months, I have experienced beautiful Eastern Christian/Orthodox worship that is as worshipful and attentive to rubrics as any that I experienced in the Orthodox churches in which I prayed. Now I know the horror stories -- but let's be honest, similar horror stories can be found on the internet about people's experiences in Antiochian, Greek, ACROD, OCA liturgical services. So to be honest, I don't put much stock by them. Parishes have history and often the history constrains contemporary liturgical practice. It takes a long time to get rid of the western icon dedicated by the founder of the church who fled Russia with icon hidden under his coat, etc. My point is first, I have not found them to be true of my experience of worship in the Ruthenian Church. In fact, to my surprise what I have found is a level of congregational involvement that I have not experienced in any form of Orthodox/Eastern Christian worship. (I have been to Orthodox Churches where all of the singing is done by a cantor and/or choir and the laypeople just sort of stand there listening like they were at a choir concert.) The level of congregational involvement shocked me the first time I visited -- everyone was singing and not just singing quietly, they were singing loudly. The little church I was in was awash with the praises of God's people. It made me weep and more than anything else it was this experience that convinced me that I was home.

Second, on a historical level, I wonder what era of "Orthodox worship, liturgics and experience" the Byzantine Catholic Church should be striving to replicate. Fr Thomas Hopko has recently written of the 11 distinct "Orthodoxies" that are vying for preeminence in the American Orthodox world. His comments are very apro-pro to this discussion:




Which one of these should the Byzantine Catholic Church be striving to emulate? Or, should rather, the Byzantine Catholic Church finally start to be herself -- to stop looking over her shoulder trying to be like them or not like them and instead to simply live her Eastern Christian/Orthodox spiritual life? This is why as a new member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, I am so excited about the new liturgy. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the fact that it exists proves that the Church is alive and that she is living her life. As one who has been drawn to the light that full communion with the Latin Church expresses, I can honestly say that the existence of the new Divine Liturgy confirms this experience and gives me peace.

In Christ,

Fr John Mack

Here is the link for the Fr Hopko piece:

http://www.ocanews.org/Hopko8.18.06.html

How about we emulate Ruthenian Byzantine Christians?

They have their own liturgical books and everything!

Rome has directed us to follow the Ruthenian books....

Ruthenians and Ukrainians in Europe agree and mandated them as normative....

And now our bishops prohibit us from using them....

The Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church cannot start to be herself so long as she is embarrassed about who she is.

This new imitation of Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism does not help us to become who we are supposed to be.

With all due respect, are you serious? The liturgical reforms which are initiated in the new Revised Divine Liturgy have all been advocated by Eastern/Orthodox liturgical scholars. Have you ever read Fr Alexander Schmemmann? No one spoke more firmly against the "Western Captivity" of the Orthodox tradition -- yet most of the changes in the new Liturgy are advocated and/or suggested as alternative possibilities in his writings.

As has already been pointed out in this forum, many Latinisms have been outlawed by the new Liturgy. Now you may not like the changes, you may not like Fr Alexander Schmemann, etc. but to accuse him of being "post-Vatican II" is just nonsense. (And I am trying to be charitable.)

There is another thread in the new service books: the bishops are establishing a "parish standard" with fewer abbreviations than has been the custom in most of our parishes for the past 50 years. It's true that this standard is lower than that in some parishes, but it is for the bishops to decide how far to raise the standard at any given time - and while is had been claimed and hinted here that the bishops have forbidden the use of litanies and verses omitted from the common service books, no one has presented any evidence that this is the case.

The availability of texts with music, the Beatitudes, weekday and saints' commons are all a good thing. Similarly, in some places the bishops are calling for us to use liturgical texts INSTEAD of non-liturgical or para-liturgical ones; the post-Vatican II Latin Rite went in precisely the opposite direction.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Quite serious.

What do you have against the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy?

When done correctly it enlivens the Church.


One can find liturgical scholars who advocate anything.

Father Alexander Schmemann – Memory Eternal! – was a wonderful man.

Which Orthodox Churches have mandated his ideas?

Rome has learned not to trust liturgical reform to liturgy professionals.

Neither should we.


Most latinizations were first outlawed in the 1940s.

We did not need a new Liturgy to address them.


I never mentioned Father Schmemann….

And less we underemphasize the obvious -- it is all in English!

As one who first began trying to pray in English when the only texts that were widely available for use in English were the "5-pounder" (Nassar) and Hapgood, I rejoice in the fullness of liturgical texts that are now available in English because of the Ruthenian Church. Thank God!

Mr. Mierzejewski,

You know quite well that it was not necessary to rewrite the Divine Liturgy in order to establish a standard with fewer abbreviations.

Promulgating the Ordo Celebrationis was all that was necessary.

Could you please stop acting as the Liturgy needed a rewrite to establish a standard?

Dostojno Jest

I know you are new to our Church.

Have you ever seen the 1964 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy?

It's in English.

The rubrics are accurate.

The language is decent.

The new Liturgicon is not complete. It is missing parts. To say it is the fullness of the Liturgy is incorrect.

Dear DJ,

I am certainly not intending to say that a rewrite was required. But many here act as if the bishops one day decided to shorten the liturgy by 30% or something, when that is certainly not the case; many parishes will experience a longer Divine Liturgy. On the other hand, there is a persistent claim here that the bishops forbade the use of a fuller service, but no evidence of that has been presented.

I agree with you that the newly-promulgated Liturgikon should be more complete than it is - and in fact that the bishops should simply promulgate the Ordo, and give permission (or even recomment) certain variations, such as the singing aloud of the Anaphora. But to the extent that many Orthodox claim that "the work of councils must be accepted by the church", the 1941 Ordo never really was accepted by Greek Catholics in North America. Any chance now (such as has been made since by the Ukrainians) will have a better change of happening if (a) the bishops understand we want it and why, and (b) they can count on our support - perhaps against some of their own clergy - if they should promulgate the Ordo. Threats and incorrect claims of what they HAVE done are not likely to avail.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Is Christ present in the new Liturgy? If He is, then the fullness is there.

By what standard?

Our official standard. The official standard prepared by Rome at the request of our bishops and promulgated in 1942.

By whose typicon?

Ours. The Typicon of the Ruthenian Church. If one removes the outright latinizations it is not really different than that of the Russian Church.

Which edition of the Liturgy in what year?

The 1942 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom we share with Ukrainian Catholics and everyone else.

The 1964 English translation is quite good.

A common translation with other Ruthenians would be great!

The Typicon is the Typicon of the Ruthenian Church. If one removes the outright latinizations it is not really different than that of the Russian Church.


The Latinizers have used this excuse for generations to justify all kinds of practices.

They use it today to rally against the standard.

Dear PrJ,

I recommend that you read Fr. Schmemann's book "The Eucharist." To think in terms of "validity" and to say that a liturgy has the fulness because it is valid is to fall into a trap.

Surely we would never just have an anaphora without the liturgy of the catechumens (liturgy of the word), would we? Perhaps the connection is more essential than accidental.

This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Since I recommended Schmemann it must be obvious that I have read his books

To talk about "fullness" is not to talk about "validity" but to remind us that the point of the liturgy is Christ Himself. So, let me ask you, when Fr George Calciu prayed the liturgy by himself in a Romanian prison with a few crumbs of bread -- when he had no texts and prayed what he could remember from the Liturgy -- when he offered the bread on the altar of his own body (since there was no altar present) -- was Christ present? If so, then that liturgy contained the "fullness" even if it was (from a liturgical standpoint) missing some "parts".

Father, bless.

I think we can agree that in that situation, his abundant faith made up for any unintentional errors. We would not want to hold the liturgy he performed up as the ideal for all in normal parish situations to emulate, though. His is an exception. It is worth noting, but it isn't what we should be basing the standard on. Don't you agree?

I haven't seen anyone act as if the bishops one day decided to shorten the liturgy by 30%, your statement is specious. The liturgy that Rome told us to use was never obeyed by our past Bishops for decades and our current Bishops did the same, everyone knows that. Now they've promulgated a feminized version of the chopped up version they were using complete with incorrect translations. Why do you try to make it that the Bishops are doing us all a favor and an Orthodox one at that with this new liturgy? They won't even let us use the word Orthodox during the liturgy.



Metropolitan Basil's letter stated the following:
"From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui Juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A."

That quote seems to say that the new liturgy is it.
Are you saying that we can still use the Red Book with the correct Creed in it? If yes, then a lot of the negative animus could be quickly remediated. Unlike a plethora other questions that I have asked that have gone unanswered please answer this one.

Does the New Liturgy move us:
a) closer
b) further

from unity with the Orthodox?

I'll await your response

Monomakh

I will answer this one -- neither. The issue that is keeping the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic apart has little to do with how the liturgy is celebrated. Orthodoxy has a plethora of liturgical practices and varies greatly in its liturgical celebrations. The Greeks do it one way, the Russians another and the Arabs a third. Local parish practice differs even more than the Typika. So in the normal Greek, Vespers (when it is prayed in the parish on Saturday evenings) is prayed on Saturday evening and then Orthros/Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. The Greeks do not ordinarily use the Litany of the Catechumen, etc. In OCA parishes, Vespers is prayed on Saturday -- sometimes Vigil -- and then usually the Hours are prayed before the Liturgy on Sunday morning. Etc. Each Orthodox jurisdiction has its own English translation of the Liturgy and thus each prayer is said differently, and each time the Creed is said different words are used. Even the Lord's Prayer varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In other words, liturgical uniformity is not an issue.

Once again, that which separates the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholic is a different ecclesiological theology. The issue is theology -- no matter how close the Byzantine Catholics come to the "Orthodox liturgy" (if such a thing exists), it will not change the question of unity until the ecclesiological issue is resolved.

I think sometimes Byzantine Catholics have this idea that if they can just look exactly like the Orthodox and sound exactly like the Orthodox, somehow unity will naturally follow. It won't. The issue is theological and can only be resolved theologically.

Once the theological issue is resolved, I would assume that each local Eparchy would continue to do its own "liturgical" services using the texts of that Eparchy and that the diversity of Orthodox liturgical practices would enlarge even more!

PrJ,

Why do you disagree and dismiss what +Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have told Greek Catholics when they've told us to return to our Orthodox roots?

Monomakh

I don't -- however, I am making two points:

1) It is not at all clear to me that returning to "our Orthodox roots" means doing things like contemporary Orthodox do them? I am not sure that everything in the Orthodox world is an accurate reflection of what the Popes mean by "our Orthodox roots". This is what Fr Hopko is saying -- what roots are you talking about? 1st century Orthodox roots, 2nd century Orthodox roots, 6th century Orthodox roots, 17th century Orthodox roots, 20th century Orthodox roots ... It is not so simple.

2) I agree with Fr. David that the call to return to our Orthodox roots must be disaligned from the discussion of Orthodox-Catholic unity. I think it is an illusion to think that if the Byzantine Catholic would just be more like the Orthodox, then union would happen. I don't think it will.

I think you're right there!

Yes you do.



Don't play coy as if to say I'm not sure what century you're referring to so that's my excuse for 90%+ of our churches ignoring Vespers and Matins. It's very simple. Restore Vespers, Matins, celebrate the Great Canon, get rid of Saturday evening liturgies, implement the liturgy that Rome gave us decades ago, put up icon screens, get rid of Latinizations,etc.
You'll be closer to all of those centuries that you mentioned above than you are now and with the new debacle of a liturgy. You and I both know that.

But I can play your cute little game too. Okay, since it is so confusing as to what century we should go with, I reject the revised liturgy's music. Supporters have told me that it is more Traditional. But to what century. The 19th, 15th, 12th, or when Prince Vladimir accepted Christianity for the Slavs in 988. Therefore what we have now is fine and should stay because it is confusing as to what our traditional music is.




This one made me laugh. Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have bent over backwards and done everything they can to foster unity with the Orthodox. Pope Benedict desperately wants to go to Moscow. He just visited Constantinople. Pope JPII went to Ukraine, went to Greece, Bulgaria, etc. They've repeatedly stated it is their goal to have unity with the Orthodox. Meanwhile, they've told us to return to our Orthodoxy and Traditions. Gee, do you think there is a coincidence there, maybe a direct correlation? You'd rather agree with Father David?

If we are just like them will unity automatically happen, no other obstacles have to be overcome, but you can't seriously think that it would hinder it and wouldn't help.

And let's get this thread back on track.

How can Archbishop Basil expect us to take his statement of 'an authentic place of worship' seriously when:

90%+ of our churches do not celebrate Vespers

90%+ of our churches do not celebrate Matins

90%+ of our churches will not celebrate the Great Canon the first week of the Great Fast

our Bishops support feminized gender inclusive language

our new and improved Creed will not only mistranslate words, but omit them entirely to appease feminists.

90%+ of our churches have Saturday evening liturgies

the majority of our churches kneel on Sundays.

do I need to go on?

The above reasons are just a few of the reasons why the Orthodox will not take us seriously and preclude unity in direct contradiction to the Pope himself.

I know that, you know that, and our Bishops know that, except I'm the only one who will stand up and say it and not live in denial and with hollow words.

Monomakh

Byzkat said: "Similarly, in some places the bishops are calling for us to use liturgical texts INSTEAD of non-liturgical or para-liturgical ones" .

I have been chanting psalms at communion, also after liturgy, for some time now, with the congregation replying alleluia in the appropriate tone after each couplet. Even though it made carrying a book to communion unnecessary, some folks missed the para-liturgical hymns, so we do both now. First, after "Let me this day", the psalm, then some hymns. It seems to work to everyone's benefit, except visitors who have no book to refer to for the hymns. I'm hoping that a para-liturgical hymnal will eventually emerge for use as well- for before or after services, and during communion.

I don't agree with this. And I thank our Bishops for having the courage to lead the Church in the direction they believe God wants the Church to go. (As my wife remarked, "What Bishop would want to bring this kind of stress into his life?") I am very happy and pleased to be in a Church where Bishops exercise leadership.

You can disagree with me. I respect that. But please don't impute thoughts or beliefs to me that I do not have.

Yes. I disagree with you.

PrJ,

I suggest you read this:

From the Liturgical Instruction:

21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage
Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, <Orientalium Ecclesiarum> (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage.

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.[26]


Monomakh

Given my rather intimate and personal knowledge of the diversity of practice that exists within the Orthodox churches in the English speaking world, I am quite confident that the new liturgy fulfills this requirement completely.

I have personally witnessed absolutely every change recommended or adopted in the new liturgy in an Orthodox parish. Thus there is nothing in it that I can see that is not in line with at least one version of Orthodox liturgical practice.

Thanks for sharing it. It confirms my commitment to following the directions of the Bishops and validates my thanksgiving to God for bringing me in my spiritual journey to the Eparchy of Parma where I can fulfill my priesthood in its eastern catholic/orthodox fullness.

Thanks!

This is in keeping with the Articles of Brest, which probably would not specifically apply to the Ruthenians of Pittsburgh (who were not a party to it) but might be considered binding on the entire Recension if that first agreement was used as a model for the admission of the others.

Article 2
That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three, that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own language.

Article 31
And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion.

Article thirty one seems to indicate a fervent desire among the bishops to continue to maintain a common set of rites and practices with the separated brethren. In that if ever there should be further unions these would not be regarded as two Greek churches, but one. The Uniate church should mirror the non-Uniate counterpart.

Ideally the churches should work very hard to keep a common Typicon even though they are separated. The act of union was no justification for regarding this as a new church for the Greek-Rus people in the mind of the signatory bishops. The bishops apparently saw the onus of conforming to be on the Uniates of the Brest agreement, in that if the practices of the other 'Greeks' had changed by the time of further union, the first group should change to match them.

Anyway that is my take on it.

Michael

These are not intended to be smart-aleck or rhetorical questions. I am genuinely looking for information.

Where may I find the official translations for use with the newly promulgated liturgy of the omitted verses in the antiphons?

The people's book includes the concluding doxology of the prayer of the 1st antiphon, but not for the prayer of the second antiphon. Is the prayer of the second antiphon in the liturgikon? If not, where may the translation for the new liturgy be found? Ditto for the prayer of the third antiphon.

EJK,
I believe they are being made available in a supplemental text through the Metropolitan Cantor Institute. It seems like I saw ByzKat say that some time back. You might ask Jeff about it.

It's ashame to see the patronizing that exists in our clergy even when they know they are wrong. No wonder that our church is in steep decline and will fall even further with this debacle of a liturgy. PrJ, continue to play your violin as Rome burns.

Are you really proud of an eparchy in which:

90%+ of our parishes don't celebrate vespers?

90%+ of our parishes don't celebrate matins?

the vast majority of our faithful kneel on Sundays?

etc., etc., etc.

It's no wonder people are turning to Orthodoxy.

how truly sad

Monomakh

Actually, I thought I just did ask. I was curious because I remember that same tidbit from many months back, but apparently I can not hit upon the correct search terms to locate the thread. I have been all over the MCI website, and I see nothing resembling such material, so I wonder if it was ever created.

If beg the knowledgeable among you permission to ask an ignorant question that could clear much up. When the letter of promulgation refers to "this text", what text is that? Where can I lay my hands on an actual document that constitutes "this text"?

Ed

I don't know why I missed Jeff's post and thought you were responding to Michael's.

PrJ,

I am sure you will want to share your intimate knowledge of Orthodoxy with us!

Can you provide us with a listings of Orthodox Liturgicons that mandate such changes? It would be helpful if you organized the list according to each change. Please use the 1964 Red Book as your starting reference. I have a collection of almost everything published by almost every Orthodox and Catholic jurisdiction in the past 50 years. Apart from some really bad private books no official ones have abbreviated and rewritten the Divine Liturgy like this.

Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes the prayer of the First Antiphon be prayed aloud, removes the Little Litanies, and prohibits more then one verse of the Antiphons?

Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes that the prayers be prayed aloud after the Latin custom?

I won't make a full list since you say you are intimately familiar with these customs and must already have one.

Thanks in advance for sharing your list of official Liturgicons that make these changes to the Divine Liturgy.

Dostojno Jest

Does the diversity of practice in the Orthodox world also extend to not having Vespers and Matins at 90%+ of their churches? If so then we Byzantines are emulating them fabulously. But something tells me that this is not the case. What was it like in the jurisdiction that you came from?

Monomakh

I could answer all of these questions with ..., but it seems to me to be contrary to the point of the Lenten Fast to be judging anyone but myself. The question I am striving to answer this Fast is -- do I pray as I should?

On that great and final Day, I will not be asked to give an account of what others have done or failed to do but only what I have done with the opportunities and privileges God has granted me.

At least during the Fast, I prefer to think and meditate on this.

Forgive.

Well this is a first, but we agree on something. Your right, on judgement day we will have to explain what we have done with the opportunities and privileges that God has granted us. Of all the sins I've committed, and there are many, standing up and pointing out that 90%+ of our churches don't celebrate Vespers and Matins won't be one. Asking our leaders to follow Rome's words and return to our Orthodox roots won't be one either. But depriving the faithful of these and other services, depriving the faithful of antiphons and litanies, and not being faithful to Holy Tradition will have to be answered to. I didn't make those rules by the way. Some will say that pointing out facts is judging, well, so be it. Oppurtunties and privileges are being denied to the faithful, this may be judging, but it is undiluted truth, and that is that this is wrong, plain and simple.

Since the Great Fast will preclude you from answering, I'll post again on Bright Monday, even the Gregorian calendar will get it correct this year, and we can discuss this then.

Have a holy and spiritual Great Fast,

Monomakh