I am frequently seeing appeals to Roman authorities and Roman declarations and Roman canon lawyers on this board, in defense of what the authors believe to be a more authentic eastern practice. I cannot help but notice the irony of the situation.

I would like to provide this thread as a place to discuss the authorities, declarations, and practices of the east for those who wish to appeal to eastern tradition instead of Roman intervention.

I believe Fr. Anthony recently stated that the unofficial inclusive creed on the GOA website has been replaced with the official promulgation of a non-inclusive creed. I know one other member stated the same idea with his or her suggestion to write to eastern leaders instead of western ones. Anyone else want to expound in this line of thought?

Where should we write to then, Constantinople? Right or wrong, we split from them a few hundred years ago. Alexandria and/or Jerusalem won't do much good either. The Maharishi won't help us either(although his beard is very Orthodox looking). But seriously, since our leadership has proceeded down this path, the only option is to write Rome. I wish that the Red Book was the norm, we could use the word 'Orthodox', etc. and we didn't have to write a single letter. The Pope continues to talk about unity with the Orthodox, and yet we think that by moving farther away from them and fiddling with the Creed that we'll fulfill his wish?

When in Rome, do as the .....yeah I know, I couldn't resist.

Monomakh

Wondering,

Your point is well taken. But for some, the promulgation of this translation has lead them (rightly or wrongly) to abandon full communion with Rome. I think it is telling that the action of the Metropolia here directly contradicts directives from Rome. Rome is NOT the issue this time - it is the Metropolia that is ignoring Rome's call to align with the Orthodox in liturgical practice.

And like it or not, the Metropoitan is in communion with the See of Rome and thus is (unlike a Patriarchal Church like the Melkites and Ukrainians) "under" the Pope.

Sooooo...I think it is fitting to mention Rome (no less than 5 times in this post, too!)

Gordo

Gordo,

There is a difference between mentioning Rome or of writing to inform them of potential problems with their stated purpose of unity with the Orthodox, etc in the hopes of pressure coming from all sides coercing a change and of saying that the Metropolia ought to or must do something because it is in line with a declaration Rome gave on its own liturgical practices or of asking Rome to command the Metropolitan to do something different. It raises much more extreme issues of eastern identity such as the Immaculate Conception, for example. I'm not writing this to tell people to write Orthodox patriarchs (or not to write Latin hierarchs), but to make people think of the logical extension of their arguments.

If the argument is that Rome issued a ruling which was not specifically addressed to the west then we need to accept and follow that ruling, then this premise has very greater implications than this revision of the Divine Liturgy.

If you want to have a fully faithful eastern tradition, you are shooting yourself in the foot to try to get it under the order and command of Rome. I am asking all here to think of other ideas which are in accordance with the eastern tradition in order to make their point.

Writing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asking them to censure the entire Byz Cath church hierarchy should not be the main focus, in my humble opinion. It might get the short-term goal, but it is going to set you back in the long-term.

Does Mankind not have the right to Depose revisionists?

What about the Anathema for changing the Creed?

Isn't this the Eastern Tradition?

We could pray for those involved, and after having repented receive them back into the Church. Then we will build them a Monastery.

Dear Wondering;

Who do youpropose we write to?

Stephanie,

I harbor no fantasies of being a know-it-all and am only making the suggestion that those who are like-minded put their brains together to come up with other strategies instead of putting all hope in Rome's Latin declarations and congregations. It is not intended to be derogatory, but a constructive criticism.

For instance, how many people in the temples would rally behind this point? That would make a big difference in tactic. What skills does each person bring to the table that could be used? I'm suggesting that the thinking get more out of the box since the situation, and its possible implications, isn't neatly contained in a box as it is.

Dear Wondering,

I was really hoping you had an idea. Sometimes the people closest to the forest can't see the trees!

-- One idea is that those who are more scholarly and schooled in the Divine Liturgy post a few letters that the faithful can use as a guide for writing to the Bishops. Not to copy per se, but to use as an outline for what to include in a letter. Any takers?

Just a thought.

Please allow me to rephrase my initial question.

Does Mankind not have the RESPONSIBILTY to Depose revisionists?

So far:

-Write Rome. We're under them anyway, so we might as well get some benefit from it.

-What else can we do? Stick with what we know and write Rome.

-Depose the entire church hierarchy.

-Have those who are skilled in the nuances of the revisions write up clear and simple explanations to make the act of writing letters easier for those not well versed in the issues.

-Depose the entire church hierarchy.

In my reading this week, I came across two comments by Fr Robert Taft that help to guide us in our attempt to approach this question from within an Eastern context:

"A tradition can be understood only genetically, with reference to its origins and evolution. Those ignorant of history are prisoners of the latest cliche, for they have nothing against which to test it."

"In the present the past is always instructive, but not necessarily normative. What we do today is ruled not by the past but by the adaptation of tradition to the needs of the present. History can only help us decide what the essentials of that tradition are, and the parameters of its adaptation."

--Fr Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in the East and the West (pages xiv, xv)

Wondering, part of this is the ecclesiastical reality of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris. As such, without the means and structure of a Patriarchal Liturgical Commission, Rome approves (or disapproves) the larger decisions, such as major liturgical rescensions, the selection of bishops, etc. Ultimately it was Rome who promulgated the Ruthenian Rescension (which is not at all abrogated, as it was recently upheld as the norm by the UGCC Synod) oever some objections of Ruthenian bishops, who wanted to continue to implement their own personal reforms.

Those of us who endured the Latin Rite of the 1970s, including myself who went all K-12 in RC schools have a different lived experience. Yes, Rome approved those books too, or at least approved the Bishops to "do their own thing". Like this implementation, it was a "do this and nothing else" sort of implementation (as the 1962 Mass and other forms were suppressed).

I saw the vast majority of my classmates exit the Catholic Church. The liturgy was completely accessible, modern, and relevant - music and language. But it apparently did not "speak" to them - they left, in droves. That experience gave me a much greater appreciation for traditional approaches to liturgical translation and reform, including a very deep respect for the Old Ritualists, the Latin Mass communities, etc. and not to dismiss those who love traditional forms of worship as strictly anachronistic.

We now see Rome revisiting that experience, and, yes, moving away from the gross innovation, experimentation, and overt modernization of the Liturgy advocated during those times. Frankly Sacrosanctum Concilium nor Liturgiam Authenticum call for no such thing as happened then. Sometimes parents allow the children to do something, have some experience which in the end will give a negative response - touching something hot, whatever.

OK, as you say, enough with the Romans. Let's discuss this from some Eastern perspectives - I would point to Meyendorff's Russia - Ritual and Reform as an important work in this discussion. Remember the Nikonian reform was purported to be a return to the "more ancient" liturgical tradition by the liturgists of the time, more in line with the Greek books, etc. That historical perspective should not be forgotten in these discussions. Those changes were often also discussed by the episcopacy as "minor", but the consequences historically were not minor.

I would also point out closer to home the proposed reform within the Ruthenian Church of Lisovsky in the late 18th century. Exasperated with individual Ruthenian bishops of the time taking their own liturgical innovations and personal reforms, Kyr Heraclii also had recourse to Rome.

What did he ask for? Not much more than the full implementation of the books from Rome compiled under Benedict XIV. He even writes:
Some of his observations of the effects of the innovations by his brother Ruthenian bishops:


(English translation of Lisovsky from His Eminence Metropolitan Lawrence Huculak)
Diak

Now where is that hand-clapping emoticon when you really need it...

Another comment by Fr. Taft:

That is what made the reform [of the Roman Rite] an organic and traditional development out of the existing tradition, and not a modernist revolution, as some of the contemporary ignorant try to portray it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009165606/praiseofglory.com/taftliturgy.htm

As a Roman Catholic trad, your discussions look all deja-vu to me. Sure, Fr. Taft is a great scholar but one has to beware of great scholars. Fr. Jungmann's book "Missarum Solemnia" was wielded by the modernist as a weapon to destroy the Roman Rite. Listen to scholars, learn from them, but trust rather men of prayer.

I must agree, Bedwere. Nothing in the quotes from Fr. Taft is objectionable in itself, but when combined with a historicist methodology, it's deadly to good liturgy.