O.K. so let me get this straight....we're supposed to be Orthodox-Catholic in Communion with Rome, right? The Orthodox Church uses our 1964 translation given to us by Rome, and now in 2007 the bishops are rewriting the Divine Liturgy so we can move closer to whom?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse.....

The title of this thread is the only thing edited on this post to reflect the thread title change.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Wow! I agree with this Revisionist on many points!

"'Time for the Lord to Act' Kit"

We definately need the Lord to act. Though this kit is not about the Lord. Though, the Acting part may be accurate.


"3 Clergy Transition.....You may still have questions or apprehensions."

For once the Revisionists are right.

"4 ...Our 'Heaven on Earth' seminar"

Yes, the name of this seminar begins with H. Though, I am concerned both the word used by the Revisionists and the word I have in mind both begin with HE. This is obviosly not gender neutral, they are probably doing something scholarly about this problem right now.

"5 Music. Music will be a special concern"

No kidding!

Now at 6, I begin to disagree.

"6 Books

a. Liturgicons. ...Each parish will receive one copy of each Liturgicon (St. John & St. Basil)"

This is definately not the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.

"b. People's Books. Peoples Books for the Divine Liturgy will be available soon..."

There the Revisionists go again, naming things without Authority. This Book certainly is NOT The People's.

You hit reply to my post, but I'm guessing this question isn't actually directed at me. Correct?

The document Fr. Anthony posted actually in my mind answers two questions. One statement was this



The other is this



A lot of what I'm reading now makes sense in particular in light of the second quote.

Just to make sure it is understood, the new Liturgy does not prohibit use of Slavonic. Last Sunday, Professor Thompson visited my parish and was specifically asked this question. He made sure to emphasize that Slavonic is allowed.

I was impressed with the music. Thompson met with the cantors and interested parishoners and sang almost all of the new Liturgy.
Since Thompson is on the music commission and, at least to my knowledge, had nothing to do with the new translation of the Liturgy, it seemed pointless to ask him to defend the gender inclusive language in the new translation.

Personally, I'm not strictly opposed to gender inclusive language (whether it is appropriate for the Liturgy is another question). But gender inclusive language, as many of us who were forced to use it in college know, is often compositionally clunky and/or ambiguous in meaning. "For us" introduces ambiguity that wasn't before present in the Creed, which is a shame. I'm torn, because I do see some value in gender inclusive language, but the prudent prejudice is not to mess with arrangements that have worked for many years unless there is a dire need to change them. I haven't seen any such need presented. The Vatican at least lays it out for you. You can look up Liturgiam Authenticam online and, however brief it may be, read the section on gender. Traditional forms (whether they be social, political, economic, liturgical, etc.) that have been tested and served throughout centurees are not to be discarded without grave reason. It would seem that changing something as essential as the Creed would be addressed in some detail, but I've found no such explanation. And again, I'll repeat that I'm not strictly opposed to gender inclusive language. I have some sympathy with the argument that referring to men and women simply as "men" or "mankind" is intrinsically connected to a nasty history of misogyny. I would be interested to learn more about the subject. Nevertheless, my conservative (as in Burke, not the neo-liberalism that passes for conservatism nowadays) bias is that changing something which has such a central place in the Liturgy would be done only under pressing need and that need would be communicated to the faithful. Perhaps such an explanation is forthcoming. I think most of us would listen.

It was interesting that Professor Thompson clearly bristled when the music was referred to as "new." It is clear that he and other members of the commission saw there task as a restorative project. I was quite taken with new music. I do not have any expertise in music, but compared with our present music the new music seemed slightly richer, complex, and more beautiful. I'll be interested to hear what others think. When speaking with Professor Thompson it was obvious that he saw the music commission's task at essentially restorative, and hence conservative. In some respects that translators also saw their task as restorative (for instance the change of substance to essence), so I am terribly, terribly curious to know the reasoning behind the gender inclusive language, which is clearly innovative and goes against the grain of the musical commission's intention in their work.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE ELIZABETH!!! I'M COMIN' TO JOIN YA HONEY!!! Seriously, All I can do after reading that letter is shake my head, cross myself, and wish my Greek Catholic bretheren the best.

You have my prayers!!!

Jim,

(The subject of the October Slavonic liturgy recently came up again in a conversation with a fellow cantor.)


I refer you to the Passaic Hierarchial Divine Litury the Fr. Michael posted. That slow tempo is how the litury was sung in Church Slavonic. I compare that Passaic liturgy to the several Pentecost liturgies I attended at several Orthodox parishes in Transcarpathia. The Uniontown and Passaic liturgies are actually much faster in tempo!

Ungcsertezs

Last Sunday, six of us parishoners were talking about our plans for the future (when the Revised Liturgy is introduced.) Each more or less knows the place he is headed (OCA, ROCOR or Serbian Church,) but none of us quite knows what the protocols will be or how to take the steps without giving scandal to the Body of Christ or offending our Ruthenian Byzantine priest.

Will there be administrative ecclesiastical steps we have to take? Who initiates them, the pastor of the church being left or the pastor of the new church?

Surely some of you have made this step already. How is it done gracefully?

Start off by attending a Vespers,(yes VESPERS!) and introduce yourself to the priest. Tell him your situation and your desire to join the Orthodox church. Coming from the Greek Catholic church is easier because it's basically a lateral move.

He'll tell you to keep attending, and if your comfortable after a month or two, he'll talk about chrismating you. He'll explain the differences, Orthodox vs. Catholic and make sure you understand them. You'll need a sponsor. Someone from the parish would gladly help you with this.

As far as my conversion, I wasn't formally registered at my former parish, so there was no need to really talk to the priest about it. You may want to bring this up to the Orthodox priest. He will be able to give you an answer and good advice on how to handle the change.

Good luck with your decision and may the Holy Spirit guide you in your journey!

Thanks for the counsel, Etnik !

Do you think it would be a mistake to tell the Priest at our new prospective churches that we are exiting the Ruthenian Byzantine Church as a matter of conscience because of the Revised Liturgy?

Or is that not a "worthy motive"...?

I brought that up with my current pastor. He basically said your reasons are your reasons, and to follow your conscience and let the Holy Spirit guide you to where your heart feels it needs to be.

I am wondering if there is also an official letter from Bishops Andrew and William to the clergy in their respective eparchies. If so, I figure there are few if any differences with that of Bishop John, but I have not seen others posted on the Forum so far.