THIS IS THE REVISED LITURGY STRAIGHT FRO...URGY THIS IS IT
Yes, it is a weekday liturgy. The only difference between Sunday/Feastdays and regular weekdays are antiphons.
This is reposted to show what this whole Revised Divine Liturgy sub-forum is about. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. This is what everyone has been talking about. It has been posted before, but here it is again. Enjoy. According to a person who was present at the liturgy this text came from, this Liturgy WAS RECORDED in order to be distributed for parish educational purposes.
This isn't some make-believe link, this is real, this is straight from Sts. Cyril and Methodius Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Seminary Chapel. Topping off this revelation would be the Priest's book, with the prayers of the deacon and the priest. You probably won't have to wait to long to see what is linked above in a hardcover pew book unless you act fast and act now. In fact, from a solid source, the pew books are already printed awaiting distribution.

fait accompli...

Hungariacertezei

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!

This is the same thing that was posted here a few weeks ago. The UKRAINIAN liturgy...

This has nothing to do with the RUTHENIAN revision.

Link to that closed thread on which I said this:

I would like to retract my last post in this thread. It's not the same link that I thought it was. The one from a few weeks ago WAS the Ukrainian liturgy. This one isn't.

I also apologize. I did not follow the link when it said it had previously been posted.

This cannot be the final approved version. It still contains the formula of "whom God loves" in commemorating one's Bishop. I have been told that we are now back to the formula "our God-loving Bishop".

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

It also omits a great deal of material that was in the text used at the Seminary - including last September, the event referred to in the original post.

It is certainly similar to part of what was taught at the MCI, but much is missing and a fair number of changes have been made since that booklet or whatever was created.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear Jeff,

If many changes have been made, what becomes of the much-vaunted Vatican approval? What, exactly, did they approve? Have they approved the changes? Do we need to resubmit the whole thing?

Did His Holiness Benedict XVI approve the new Liturgy?

Dear Pseudo-Athanasius,

The wording "our bishop N., whom God loves", was changed back to the old wording more than a year ago (as mentioned on here at the time, as I recall). Since then, as far as I can tell from the materials used at the Cantor Institute, a number of typos have been corrected, some of the music has been adjusted based on experience with its use, and so on; those are the "many changes" I was referring to. I doubt that either sort of change would have required further approval from Rome.

As far as the actual approvals from Rome, I am hopeful that the correspondence will be published if/when the new liturgical materials are promulgated, as that would likely lay some questions to rest.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Considering the pew books are already printed and await distribution... how would there be turning back? All the money and resources already used logically wouldn't be thrown away with not selling the new pew books to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic parishes. This is a scenario where it already HAS HAPPENED. It just hasn't been distributed to your parish yet. It's already to go, it just needs to be delivered (it's printed and hard-bound).
Let me say this again, in caps THIS NEW LITURGY HAS HAPPENED, IT IS PRINTED AND READY TO BE DISTRIBUTED. YOU JUST HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT AT THE PARISH LEVEL YET.

Whether the books are already printed or not is irrelevant.

I do not know how finances were allocated or spent for this boondoggle. But even if the cost exceeds $1 or $2 million the decision on whether to implement it can only be properly made upon merit. Basic scholarship (that posted here and published elsewhere) has demonstrated that the proposed revisions to the liturgy (esp. rubrics) and the style of translation (esp. the exclusive "inclusive languge") are incorrect. The proposed "product" strays greatly from our official books. It is always best to stop a bad project and accept the monies spent as lost. It is never good to do something bad just because one has spent money on it. Promulgating incorrect books simply because the money has been spent is simply not logical.

Think about it. Have you ever started to paint a room and then realized that there was something wrong with the paint (bad quality, wrong color, etc)? Would you continue to paint your house with bad paint just because you already paid for it and cannot return it (because it was a custom paint)? No. You would dispose of the paint and start again with quality paint. You would consider the money you spent on the custom paint to be an expensive lesion.

Turning back to what is official and correct is easily accomplished.

Here's a straightforward approach - a pastoral letter from the hierarchs on Liturgy. It could contain several elements: 1) a simple endorsement and promulgation of the official books as directed by Rome in 1941 and reaffirmed in 1953 and 1996 (in various letters and instructions) (much like what the UGCC Synod just did), 2) an exhortation to all clergy to begin embracing the official Liturgy using the 1964 Liturgicon, 3) a statement that the liturgical commission has done a lot of good work but that it still needs additional reviews for conformity with the official books and input from appropriate scholars outside our Church. The direct the liturgical commission to review the entire text to ensure conformity with the official books and the principles outlined by Rome in the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam and seek the input of qualified translators and dogmatic theologians from other Churches.

Regarding the Liturgicion itself, there is a real need to reprint the 1964 Liturgicion (the "red book"). It can be easily and quickly reprinted with corrections and only a few changes to the people's texts.

In the end I really do not think that all four of our hierarchs are going to be willing to sacrifice liturgical unity with other Byzantine Catholics and all of Byzantine Orthodoxy just because money has been spent on this boondoggle.

We'll leave the light on for all of you!

Alexandr

Well if the Novus Ordo of Saint John Chrysostom goes through, you may be leaving the light on for many as they flock back to their traditional roots.

The Insider