For those Byzantine Forum members who are still members of the Ruthenian Metropoplia and have been using the new Revised Divine Liturgy, how many are in favor and how many aren't in favor. Please respond with a "yes" or "no" short answer.

Ungcsertezs

No. It was not thought out with the impact on us, the followers. Pre-Change, everyone came to Liturgy, knowing what is going to happen, that in this life we trust one common thread, our Faith, and that it will never change.. and then it's slightly changed on us, just enough to make everything seem like you're a stranger in a strange land, BUT not enough for those who changed it to say, "it's just words." In the business world, you make a change like this and you lose customers.

I recently when to a Latin Rite Mass w/ my wifes family and to be honest, I felt the same strange feeling like "this isn't what I am supposed to be doing.."

Maybe time will heal? I don't know. But I do know if they change again during my life time, then I will feel our solid foundation is not as solid as I thought and will probably find a Roman Catholic Church.
--
http://www.stmichaelstoledo.org

Can't really say yet. I was at part of the D/L yesterday for the first time since our priest implemented it several weeks ago. It wasn't all that different IN FORM from what we've been used to in Passaic, the only real change I noticed was the litany of oblation after the great entrance. The ending prayer seems a bit long for one little litany petition. Obviously, the wording continues to trip up people quite a bit. We've made some changes in the wording in the music that we use, but there is still stumbling. I was only there through the consecration, so I can't say anymore beyond that, though someone said that the communion prayer had changed as well. No one but the cantor sang the troparion and kontakion and prokimenon. They are very different.

Does this mean that my copy of "Menologion" (the programme which shows the Tropar and Kontak for the day) is no longer useful?

I don't like it. Hope it changes soon...

Don't hold your breath...

Ungcsertezs

Yes, as a cantor I'm in favor of the restoration. We have been using the new books since Cheesefare Sunday, with no revolt from the parishioners. However, I find I can no longer stomach the whole subject of the Revised Divine Liturgy in this Forum due to the extreme negativism.

'restoration'?

This is a restoration like North Korea is a 'Democratic Peoples Republic'.

It's all about labels and what you want them to mean isn't it?

Perhaps you could share with us for example when in our churches history we've had one verse antiphons? How is this restoration?

Monomakh

More uncharity during the Great Fast. A poll is created. A response is given. Putdowns and snide remarks are made because the response is not liked. The poll asked about the new translation, who was using it and if they were in favor. Some musically trained people feel the new music is a restoration. This poll has nothing to so with matins or rubrics. But it is plain to see that anyone with anything postivie to say about the new translation will be shouted down and belittled. And some continue to wonder why no one will listen to them? If the hierarchs read this forum it is no wonder they ignore the letters coming from its members. I read complaints about the Great Canon not being taken but it appears some who sought it out profitted little from it. For all their prostrations they remain unhumbled and while fasting from animal products consume their brothers and sisters.

Monomakh,

I haven't searched the archives yet. Does your own parish, If BCC, serve Matins? How many OCA parishes serve matins? How many ACROD parishes? The problem is more widespread than just the BCC.

As to on verses of the antiphons.....sigh.... I had hoped that there would be restoration of the full antiphons. Sadly in our church's history there has bee one verse of the antiphons for far too long. The last 100 years seems to be too far back in our church's history to find REGULARLY sung multiple verses of the antiphons. Yes maybe 1% of our parishes did sing all three antiphons with all three verses on a REGULAR basis.

Too often we here seem to be like the three blind men describing an elephant based upon the limited information we can gather by what we experience. To extrapolate our parish experience to all the Metropolia will always be incomplete. Some parishes celebrate a fuller cycle of liturgical services than do others. This seems more a function of the priests (and to some small extent the laity) in the individual parishes. Would that our Bishops mandate better consistency in the celebration of Liturgies throughout our Eparchies!!! {oh wait, they did and many rebelled!!!}

To call this restoration akin to the "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea is somewhat misleading and extreme. Perhaps you could cite when in our history as a church the people (laity) have ever had so much say in how the liturgy is celebrated?

This, my unworthy $.0002 opinion,

Steve

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

You complain of lack of charity during the Great Fast, and then provide an example of such lack of charity.

Some people have certainly been hurt, and feel as though no one is listening to their pain. That pain could, in theory, be imaginary, but it remains traumatic, and there is no reason to be surprised that people who feel abused often respond with less than perfect etiquette. To respond to them in kind is unlikely to be helpful.

In the present situation of the Church in many countries (including both Ireland and the USA) a simple demand that people should obey the authority of the hierarchs is unlikely to succeed. I fervently hope that there is no need to explain the circumstances which have led to a reduction in the value of such an appeal to hierarchal authority.

So what to do? At the risk of repeating suggestions I've already made, it would be helpful to realize that those who are already voicing pain and objections are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg and that there is a need to present liturgical change in such a way as to enable people to "take ownership" of both the process and the result. In most places, this requires heroic patience. It also requires a willingness to consider the possibility that if the experts are advocating an innovation that significant number of the faithful do not want, it may be better to wait and to work to prepare the ground - without giving the impression that one regards the faithful as people who are ill-mannered, disrespectful and uneducated and who therefore are unable to recognize that some change is good for them.

The Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA is blessed with faithful who have acheived a higher level of education than at any previous time in the history of this particular Church. The challenge, therefore, is to respond to the educated laity in ways which will positively encourage the up-building of the Church.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

It is not uncharitable to reprimand those who deserve it. As clergy and a moderator here it is my job. I have let quite a bit go but I will do so no longer. Many have been warned many times, by the Admin John, Fr, Anthony, myself, and other moderators.

That people have hurt feelings does not give them the right to belittle other posters they disagree with or deride our hierarchs.

And since you are across the ocean and not in the middle of it you will understand if I think your take on this situation is innaccurate. Those vehemently opposed to the new translation are extremely vocal but also in the minority. The greater part of the faithful are unconcerned, while others are worried because of what they hear from those opposed. But I suspect when they actually see and hear the Liturgy they are going to wonder what all the fuss was about. So it was for those of us at the deacon's retreat.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

It is entirely possible that my geographic distance from the battlefield is affecting my take on the fray.

Anyone who would like to know what is at issue is advised to obtain a complete, accurate translation of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and then attend the revised version - or, by turnabout, to obtain a copy of the revised version and then attend a complete celebration. That ought to work.

[Complete and accurate English translations are not hard to find - I might suggest Christ With Us, from the Ukrainian Catholics, the OCA text - from the OCA, obviously - or others on the market.]

Fr. Serge

Thank You Fr Serge! I think this is sound advice! I will heed your suggestion!

Say to GOD: How awesome are Your deeds! So great is Your power that Your enemies cringe before You.

jody

Fr. Serge offers sound advice, although, I question whether it is fair to suggest attending an OCA Liturgy for comparison purposes. Even an unabbreviated Ruthenian Recension Liturgy is still shorter than a Russian Recension Liturgy because of the latter's many accretions which are not found in the former, not through defect or abbreviation but simply because it is more ancient, not to mention local traditions like zapivka. Oddly enough after comparing texts those of the Melkite and Greek Recensions appear closer to the Ruthenian than the Russian even though these are in the Slavonic family.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I have recently attended mutiple Greek Orthodox Saturday Vespers, Sunday Orthros, and Sunday Divine Liturgies in Greek, in English, and Bi-Lingual. (Both St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great Liturgies.) I have also attended UGCC Liturgies in both Ukranian and English. I now notice much missing from the current Ruthenian celebrations, and not just words.

This Fast I have also attended the PreSanctified Liturgy in Greek Orthodox Churches. I have experienced the PreSanctified Liturgy both in 98% Greek and in 98% English. Yesterday evening I attended the PreSactified Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic Church. More than half an hour was missing, among other things....

Oh, and I also met wonderful Mother of 7 beautiful children. Sure, her family entered the Ruthenian Catholic Church to experience the Beauty of the Byzantine Liturgy but it was mainly to escape the Novus Ordo. She is certainly not pleased with the inclusive language Liturgy. She also wants her family to pray the FULL Divine Liturgy and receive all of the blessings including Anti-Doran. She doesn't care about "Music Restoration" she cares about Spiritual Restoration.

In my last post I forgot to mention that I got home about 45 minutes ago from the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete and reading of the life of St. Mary of Egypt. The Great Canon was at a Greek Orthodox Church. The Compline parts were 100% Greek the Canon parts were 100% English.

The Great Canon was a great and Holy Experience. However, the RDL and the circumstances by which is is being implemented are not made Holy by my attendence of any Church Services. Yes, even though I attended the Great Canon of St. Andrew, I still disagree with the RDL.

Thank you Fr Deacon Lance! I was seriously considering attending DL at the Cathedral in Munhall. And, I was going to read through a 1966 Byzantine Seminary Press version of the DL before and after the DL at the Cathedral.

Of course, I need to pray, pray, pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. I am one of the minority that is **really** troubled by the revision. I was hoping to get some help/peace here on the forum.

I think praying, reading, praying will settle the matter once and for all.

That Your way may be known upon earth, among all nations Your salvation.
jody

Re-reading my post, I am still unable to discern any suggestion that one should attend an OCA celebration of the Divine Liturgy - I simply suggested obtaining a copy of the OCA translation, which is another matter. That translation is done in the same functional variety of English as the RSV Bible, and is readily understandable.

On the other hand, the assertion that the Nikonian Liturgy (sometimes called the "Russian" Liturgy or the "vulgate recension") is notably longer than the complete Ruthenian Liturgy, is simply inaccurate. The Nikonian Liturgy offers two petitions at the Ektene (following the Gospel) not found in the Ruthenian text and four additional petitions at the second prayer for the faithful - but these four petitions are only used if a Deacon is serving. That's it. Even if all six of these petitions are used, it would not add more than 2-3 minutes to the service. Better yet, go to the Divine Liturgy at Saint Michael's Russian Greek-Catholic Church in New York, and see for yourself. Bring a stopwatch if you like.

The variable factor that genuinely affects the length of the service is the choice of music. Some chant systems take longer than others, and some selections of choral music take longer than others.

Fr. Serge

I take it you have not attended a celebration of the Pre-Nikonian Old Rite Divine Liturgy (in Erie or other places). The Old Rite DL is not necessarily "shorter" than the Nikonian.

Dear William,

I tend to cast a wide net in my travels, and for some outside our immediate jurisdiction, but with degrees in music and knowledge of our particular chant settings this is not so much a restoration as it is a reclamation and addition with respect to the musical settings.

I think people outside of the Byzantine Church are in a watch and wait mode, realizing that not enough people have experienced the fullness of the liturgical cycle to even recognize what they are talking about even if they do say something about it at the moment.

But to call this new Byzantine order by the name of restoration is more than a little bit of a stretch of the actual reality, of what has been done.

I don't think that all the emotional flailing has done much to advance the actual realities of what is truly wrong with our current liturgy. But to brush all the negative off as mere ranting by a disaffected few is going to come back to haunt us in the future.

Mary

There was suppose to be a clergy meeting with Archbishop Basil last week for comments from the Pittsburgh parishes that began to use the RDL and RDL music. Concensus from the parish I attend was:

People weren't in favor of the change to "inclusive" language, including our pastor.

People having great difficulty with the new music, very awkward, doesn't seem to flow. As a result, the liturgy begins to drag and pace begins to slow. Not a lot of people following along and singing, too busy turning pages.


U-C







U-C

That's what I've heard from some that I have talked to at my parish, too hard to follow, too many pages to turn. I haven't really used the book at all, just looked at a copy.

Negativism? I favor - and serve each Sunday - a nice, standard Byzantine Divine Liturgy, well sung and unabbreviated. Without a trained cantor, teaching the congregation to sing requires patience, but as time goes by the congregation learns things which at first seemed strange, and the Divine Liturgy is pleasant.

The same thing can be done, and is done, in most of the languages currently used for our Liturgy. This includes Arabic, English, Greek, Church-Slavonic, Japanese, and a good many more. English is rather well catered for, both with translations and with available music in the chant system of your choice.

So what is so negative about these observations?

Fr. Serge

I agree with Father Deacon that there have been putdowns and snide remarks by people on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform (including even some by clergy who support the reform), and that these comments have been uncharitable. On this I join Father Deacon in reminding posters to be charitable at all times. Disagree over issues but don’t get personal. One can say “I agree (disagree) with the liturgical reform because of reasons A, B and C.” One can say I think the bishops did the right thing (did the wrong thing / caused great joy / caused great harm) and then give reasons. One should not make negative personal comments about any individual, including bishops. I will also make clear that “I like the new liturgy / music” or “I dislike the new liturgy / music” is not a personal comment. Good people who have the best of intentions can produce a masterpiece one day and a fiasco the next. At work I am judged by the quality of my work, not by how hard I have worked. That is as it should be.


Unless Father Deacon can provide proof of such a claim that was given to him directly from a bishop he ought not to make such claims (and really should retract it). I do know from accurate and multiple sources that a few who support the reform are purposely spreading such a claim with the intent to label all those who reject the reform as both chronic complainers and a tiny minority. They are neither.


I agree with Steve’s observation. It is for the very reason that our Church has not been faithful in matters of Liturgy that the Liturgical Instruction states: 18. The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating.


Mandates never work. As I have said numerous times in these discussions, if the Holy Spirit inspires and leads true organic liturgical development in the Byzantine Church mandates will not be necessary (and, in true Byzantine fashion, the liturgical books get updated long after said development is already accepted everywhere). The converse to this is that if the Holy Spirit has not inspired and led the liturgical development even a mandate cannot make it find acceptance among God’s people. People can be led, not pushed.


I agree that the comparison to North Korea is uncharitable.

But a study of history will show that the Liturgy is the property of the entire Church – bishop, priest, deacon, monastic and laymen – and that there are many historical examples of “Sensus Fidelium” where the people stopped errant bishops from doing what was wrong. We can even see this in our own history where a certain bishop was “promoted to Rome”.


This is an accurate observation. Judging from my own experience together with the hundred or so e-mails I have received at the website since the promulgation I can testify that there are indeed numerous people who have been hurt by this promulgation. I am personally scandalized at some of the stories that have reached my ears that those who disagree with the reform are being encouraged to leave.


I disagree with Father Deacon Lance. I know that a few of those who support the reforms are claiming that there is no real opposition to it and that those who oppose it are really nuts anyway but the clergy and cantors I speak to each week indicate otherwise.

It is certainly true that most people do wish to be obedient and show deference to the wishes of the bishops. It is also true that it is unlikely that the faithful will organize in protest. What will happen is that a number of people will simply stop going to Liturgy at our parishes. They will go elsewhere or nowhere. We have had a poster from the cathedral parish in Pittsburgh who has been complaining that the cathedral has halved its Sunday attendance since the experimentation with the Liturgy began there several years ago. I have taken the time to speak to a few who have confirmed that there has been a definite loss of people due to the changes over the past few years, and that the remaining people are still very upset at the reform.

The fact is that the New Liturgy is not a draw to most people. That is understandable since the liturgical flow is now nothing like it used to be and much more like the Roman Mass. When people don’t like something they tend not to embrace it. I understand this attitude completely. Since Bishop Pataki mandated the rubrical reforms in Passaic about 10 years ago the Ruthenian Church has become less and less a home to me. Now with the mandated New Liturgy it is no longer a home to me. I could now walk away from the Church I have worshipped in all my life. But this Church is worth saving and restoring and the current bishops will not be on their thrones forever. The correct path is to start laying the foundation for a rejection of this reform and for a restoration of the official and complete Ruthenian recension.


While Father Serge has explained that he was not advocating attending an OCA Liturgy but suggesting reviewing the OCA Liturgicon (and others) I will comment on this.

There are OCA parishes and then there are OCA parishes. Attending one that has a full and complete Divine Liturgy is a good idea. Better yet, find a ROCOR parish and you will find excellent Liturgy. Or, sit right at your computer and listen to the Paschal Divine Liturgy from 2006 and use it as your comparison. 75 minutes of your time will show you that the Ruthenian Recension works! [There are a number of parishes with singing this good.]

Do not compare the Revised Liturgy with the worst Liturgy in our parishes. Compare it with the official Liturgy and use those places that celebrated it fully and where it is obviously Spirit-filled.


That is the consensus from most parishes. No one but a tiny, vocal and persistent handful wanted liturgical reform. Many were willing to be led back to a much fuller use of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. It is not too late for the bishops to do what is right and cancel the revision and finally promulgate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (as in our official books from Rome) as our standard.

We have not been faithful with the great gift we have been given in the Ruthenian Liturgy. Instead of embracing it we run from it and reform it because we are embarrassed of who we are and who we are called to be. It is never too late to do what is right and finally embrace this gift. If we do we will become like the servant who had been given five talents and multiplied them. Right now we are like the servant who was given one great talent and buried it in the ground because he was afraid. The longer we leave it buried the more likely everything will be taken away from us.

Amen!


God bless you Administrator! I pray that your words prove to be prophetic.

Let us all pray for the bishops! May they promulgate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy!

O Lord, in Your love for mankind, look down with merciful eyes on Your servants who, with faith, prostrate before Your loving kindness and having heard their supplication, bless their good intention and their work. Grant that they may favorably begin and, without any obstacle, quickly complete it for Your glory; we pray You, O Most Powerful King, hear us and have mercy.

Heavenly Mother, Mother of Our GOD, Protectress of Christians, interceed for us! Unworthy as we are, look upon us with your tender mercy! Never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, sought thy intercession was left unaided. How often, our dear Mother, you have come to the rescue of sinners! How often you have crushed the head of the serpent! We implore your intercession for our intentions. This is a most desperate hour, we beg your sweet and loving intercession.
Amen.

I don't know if this is directed at me or not, but again I will state I am neutral on the reform on the whole. I labelled no one a chronic complainer. I do believe that as with all change those adamantly opposed are a minority. Of course I am judging things from my own experience, but any change is likely to upset any number of people for any amount of time. When my parish: resumed infant Communion, standing for Pascha, omitting the Filioque, and started having Liturgy with a deacon, many were unsettled and had to get used to the above. Those really opposed were few and some moved on but even they got used to it. From my own observations those are my beliefs about those opposed to the reform. It is not an attempt at belittling their opinion, but as some claim the Metropolia doomed I feel compelled to offer the counter-point.

As for proof of my claim it comes from this very site and those who claim to have written or spoken to the hierarchs and claim to have been ignored.



I must disagree. Mandates do work and the OCA Litrugikon that is held up as a comparison to ours is an example. Patriarch Nikon might have caused quite a stir but it worked. And I must say that many major changes were brought about by mandate and this is across many Liturgical traditions. Perhaps it is wrong in thinking that the Holy Spirit micromanages every change in the Liturgy rather than guiding only the general ethos?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, this was directed at you for you said that “no one will listen to them” and “If the hierarchs read this forum it is no wonder they ignore the letters coming from its members.” Some of our bishops have a history of not answering letters of any kind (regardless of the topic). Because they are not providing responses to letters does not mean that they are not reading them and hearing what the letters say. It is a stretch to conclude that a non-response equates to being ignored (even though it might feel that way).

Regarding the other things Father Deacon mentioned (infant Communion, standing for Pascha, restoring the Creed, the use of a deacon at the Liturgy, etc.) I will suggest that they are all good things, things authentic to our liturgical tradition. Many parts of the reforms now mandated are not authentic to our liturgical tradition. We need to remove those elements and restore our official tradition so that we may be formed by it. I believe that if we restore instead of reform and live our liturgical tradition for a few generations we will be able to speak legitimately to the possibility of reform, a reform done within the unity of the Byzantine Church.


Ah….. "Patriarch Nikon might have caused quite a stir but it worked?"

The Nikonian mandated reform worked only because of the tortures and executions of those who refused to accept it. I don’t recommend holding it up as a model demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit.

I suggest that the statement that the Holy Spirit micromanages is incorrect. He leads. Mandates in our Church along with calls for obedience to things no one is asking for is a recipe for empty churches.

The Nikonian reform "worked" to the extent that it did on the basis of murder (Hieromartyr Paul, Archpriest Avvakum, and many others) use of force and violence to compel clergy and faithful to use Nikon's books, and horrendous abuse of the consciences of hierarchs, priests, deacons, monastics and faithful. To give one example of such abuse: the government would not recognize marriages performed by Old Ritualist clergy; this had unspeakable results. To this we may add the general cynicism within Russian Orthodoxy which began to heal only when it was too late to stop the Revolution.

But still more to the point: in spite of all of the above, the Nikonian reform did not succeed - unless one chooses to consider the persistence of millions of Old Ritualists in the teeth of everything the Romanovs and the State Church could do to them a negligible matter. The joyful renewal of Church life among the Old Ritualists indicates that there are still major communities (from Moscow to Sydney, incidentally) which continue the authentic tradition of the Russian Church.

As a practical matter, there is no one available with the ability to use that kind of force and violence to compel allegiance to the specific liturgical versions which have prompted this present discussion. Thank God - such methods have no legitimate place in any Church claiming to be Christian. For that matter, such methods have no legitimate place anywhere at all.

Not quite eighty years ago, the attempt to impose a celibate priesthood on the Pittsburgh Exarchate also used some rather high-handed methods. Would anyone care to defend those methods today? If faced with the record of expensive and prolonged litigation, splits in families and parishes, and a legacy of bitterness that is still not fully healed, would anyone claim that the imposition of celibacy "worked"?

Those who are at my advanced age, or even older, will remember the argument that "Mussolini made the trains run on time".

Fr. Serge

My understanding is that when a person recieves Holy Communion at either the old or the new Divine Liturgy, that person is still receiving Jesus Christ.

If indeed, this is correct, I should hope we all find ourselves overjoyed that we sinners have been invited to such a glorious feast. I should hope that, we -- while doing our part to give our input in how Divine Liturgy should be -- do not lose track of the centeral focus of Divine Liturgy, and allow ourselves to get frustrated or worried about the details of the Rite.

That is not to say that we shouldn't share our thoughts, or that the details are not importaint -- they are importaint. It is, rather, to say that we ought not lose our peace and calm over it.

Your train of thought is actually yet another reason to question why so much good time and money was wasted on this New Liturgy.

Imagine the good that could have been done with all of the time, energy, and money that has already been wasted.

A serious effort at evangelization could have taken place that could have focused on recruiting young families and reducing the 'greying' of our churches that is the status quo currently.

But what we all need to realize is that the end goal of this revision was to, once and for all, make the Byzantine Catholic Church of America isolated from our Orthodox brethern as well as our Greek Catholic brethern. And on that note I have to say mission accomplished.

Let us pray that we don't end up isolating ourselves from into oblivion.

Monomakh

Yes. I am not Pharasaic. I actually believe that our Bishops are doing what they feel is correct. I WILL NOT leave my church because of some rubrical nonsense. When doctrine is changed then I will consider leaving. I can just see all the laity, after they join a new church, saying "as least father I do not worship you with inclusive language but the correct way." While those that stay say, "Lord, forgive me a sinner." Sound familiar? Publican and Pharisee.

While not directly effected by the liturgical whims of Munhall, I must, in all good faith object to the tone and the implication that those who strive to continue the Traditions handed down to them are somehow Pharisaical. If Mr Theologos (a quite ill suited moniker, if I may add) considers the Rubrics and Traditions of the Church to be nonsense, he might just be more comfortable in the "Kumbaya singing", "hand holding", "Praise Jesus", Blue jean clad nuns" sector of the Church that doesn't give a hoot about Tradition.

Apalling................

Alexandr

When a man says, "I am not Pharasaic." He is being Pharasaic.

Dear Theologos:

I think you should reconsider your position with respect to your use of the phrase "rubrical nonsense." I would also avoid drawing sharp distinctions between liturgy and doctrine. We have rubrics for a reason. The principle of "lex orandi, lex credendi" states that the way we worship (including the actual words of the liturgy) informs what we believe. This is a principle embraced by the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Roman Catholics. It is exactly because of the inextricable link we believe exists between liturgy and doctrine that we have rules, or rubrics, that govern the way in which we pray the liturgy.

I certainly respect your beliefs-whatever they are-about the Revised Divine Liturgy, as I respect those of individuals across the spectrum. However, I think that those who oppose the revisions (or at least many of them) do so exactly because they are concerned that the revisions in some way compromise their beliefs. While I'm not sure as to whether I have reached the same conclusion, I do think they are right when they insist that rubrics are important and that the actual words we say in our various liturgies are important.

In peace,
Ryan

If you read the story of the Publican and Pharisee more closely, you'd see that you've got the point exactly backwards. It's the Pharisees that make judgments of others' worthiness. One can say "Lord, forgive me a sinner" like a Pharisee!

LOL!

We can only dream...

no

Fr. Deacon Lance said a while back:

"Those vehemently opposed to the new translation are extremely vocal but also in the minority. The greater part of the faithful are unconcerned, while others are worried because of what they hear from those opposed. But I suspect when they actually see and hear the Liturgy they are going to wonder what all the fuss was about. So it was for those of us at the deacon's retreat."

What Fr. Deacon Lance says above is also true in my own parish. Further, we will have completely transitioned to the new book by Thomas Sunday without any vocal complaints at all, and without any disappearing parishioners.

Jim Sprinkle, Cantor
St. Thomas BC Church, Gilbert, AZ

The administrator wrote:


THEN the following was posted:



If I read Monamakh's post correctly he believes that the Liturgical Commission and all four of our bishops have authorized the new translation SOLELY as a tool against unity.
Truly this is a serious charge which he has repeated several times without challenge; I hope that the administrator will ask the posted to present some semblance of evidence.
Otherwise he should withdraw this accusation and offer an apology.

Father Deacon Paul

Well, it is putting more distance between not only Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics, but between Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics and ACROD Churches and OCA Churches as well because of the difference in the translation. This is very evident.

U-C

I agree with Father Deacon Paul that Monomakh’s post is written as an accusation, and that he should withdraw the accusation unless he can provide specific evidence.

I will also state that Monomakh’s point would make an excellent question. It is very fair to ask the bishops why they decided to make changes to the Liturgy that destroy the unity we currently hold in our official Liturgy books with our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox.

Admin

I withdraw my statement and ask the following:

Why have our bishops decided to make changes to the Liturgy which destroys the unity we currently hold in our official Liturgy books with our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox?

Deacon Paul, perhaps you will explain the answer first?

Monomakh

I am very much looking forward to an answer to this question. Anyone?

I am not on the commission, nor in the head of the Bishops, so it would be useless for me to try to answer this question. Certainly you must realize that requesting me to do so is totally meaningless. But it is unthinkable to consider that this was the reason for the changes. This change was promoted by Archbishop Judson of blessed memory and (my perhaps poorly informed) memory suggests that it was to MORE CLOSELY relate to untainted eastern tradition such as:
standing rather than kneeling
adding the teplota
eliminating the filioque
increasing (for many parishes) the litanies
increasing use of the typica during the great fast
decreasing the use of western hymns

The revision does all these thing (overall, though some parishes may have their liturgy slighty reduced)

Also, from a personal conversation, Archbishop Judsen was an advocate of so-called inclusive language.


Because all my life I have worshipped at my Rusyin Byzantine Catholic Church I am not well versed in my brothers rites. However what I have seen with the Ukrainian BC and the local Orthodox parish, the Divine Liturgy and Moleben to Mother of God (Theotokos) are not verbatim.

Many of the comments over the past four months imply that there is a radical departure from other filial ritual. I know that I will be severely chastised for not being able to see the difference and am not going to become involved in a lengthy argument about differences in personal opinion.

Perhaps we should instead spend this time is prayer during this most holy week.

Father Deacon Paul

If the intention is to add Eastern tradition, why would some parishes be required to reduce theirs?

I would hope that this bar that has been set is the lowest common denominator. Surely parishes which have a history of being faithful to the eastern traditions will be able to obtain permission to continue after discussing their specific circumstances with their bishops. Do you not expect so?

Dear Wondering,

I respect your question; it's an excellent one but I'm not in a position to answer it. It would be more appropriate to ask your pastor. I would expect that if a priest wants to continue an established tradition in his parish retaining all the ektenia and antiphons that they would not be forbidden from doing so.

I think that, at least in the archeparchy, the bar has been raised ON AVERAGE; not lowered.

Anyone can point out exceptions; but generally, they ARE exceptions, not the norm.

Personally, something strikes me as odd. I don't want to overdo the stereotype, but I've always felt that Eastern spirituality and ritual has its strength in its diversity. That is, using the vernacular, a respect for cultural tradition and evolution of its music and paraliturgical customs (like pussy willows on Palm Sunday) and the like. Eastern Churches are not all the same. A Pennsylvania parish is not the same as a parish in Syria, or a parish in Serbia is not the same as in Ethiopia.

To me that helps the Eastern Churches to be closer to its peoples than the Latin Church where there was one rite and one language prior to Vatican II. What I am hearing on this forum is that the East is wanting all the Churches to conform to only ONE way; if you don't do it the way they do it in Russia (or Uzhohrod, or Slovinky, or Belgrade, then one is not Eastern.

If one sui juris Church does not respect a filial Church then how can we say we are different than the Western Church? Why would they object to a universal Pope and Magisterium who have done what these Orientals would love to do?

In other words, why do those outside the Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Church think they should dictate what my Church should do. Does union of East and West require two megachurches? This is strictly my personal thought and I don't mean to offend anyone; just trying to keep with Eastern tradition.

In all humility,
Father Deacon Paul

It is not necessary to reform the Liturgy to raise the standard of celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Metropolia. The standard of celebration could easily have been raised with the 1964 Liturgicon, which has the benefit of being accurate and complete.


There is a difference between Liturgy and paraliturgical customs. We hold liturgy in common with all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox. The differences, which the Church acknowledges as “recensions” are not all that great.


It is not just those of us on the Forum who believe unity is important.


The canons assume that we are already keep the Byzantine Rite (esp. the Ruthenian recension) common with other Byzantine Catholics. We have Ruthenian and Ukrainian parishes in the same neighborhoods and oftentimes on the same street. Can anyone seriously argue that the pastoral needs of these different Churches sui juris are so great that each needs to reform the Liturgy according to differing principles?


Unity. See the quote from above.

Sui juris does not mean that we are a local Church that can do whatever we wish with the Liturgy. In our case it means sharing the Byzantine Rite (the complete set of liturgical books) with both the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) and with the entire Byzantine Church.

What is so horrid about the Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgy that some feel the need to prohibit its use in our parishes and mandate different customs?

The administrator wrote:



Though others may not be in total agreement with the changes, IT IS NOT A RENEGADE revision. As is stated on page six of the Liturgikon the change was made in accordance with Canon 657 which states in section 1:
The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.

I know you understand this John, but to other forum members who may not know, our Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Metropolitan Church sui iuris.

So the revision is a legitimate one and it is properly promulgated.

The revision is legally proper, it is promulgated, it is disseminated, it is supported by publications and music and it the call to implement it is in place.

Getting back to the original question of this thread, I feel that energy expended will be more productive in implementing it to the best of my ability than in fighting it.

Father Deacon Paul

Fr. Dn.,

There is more opposition to the revised liturgy then the revisionists would like to admit. People have a right to express their negative thoughts about this revision and how it was promulgated.

U-C

Fr. Deacon Paul wrote: <<So the revision is a legitimate one and it is properly promulgated.>>

Just because something might be legal does not mean it is right nor helpful. St Paul said: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful." 1 Cor. 6:12.

Dear Father Deacon,

May I suggest that you ask someone who remembers such things about the two different versions of Article 7 in the introduction to the Missal of Pope Paul VI?

Fr. Serge

Greetings Father Deacon,

I respect your opinion. However, I will fight this tooth and nail until there is a retraction (or I am sure there is no chance for a retraction). I am not a scholar or a language expert. I do not have a masters or a doctorate degree. I am but a lowly layman with an undergraduate degree. But I have never been more convinced of anything as I am that inclusive language in the Liturgy is a terrible error. How do I know this? I can chronicle and link you to many different articles from learned scholars--but when all is said and done, I know this because it is written on my heart.

Peace be unto you during this Great and Holy Week,
Recluse

I agree that it was certainly the intention of the hierarchs to promulgate the Revised Liturgy according to the canons but it seems clear to me (and to many others) that this is not what they did.

Please consider the remainder of the canon you quoted:



The Revised Divine Liturgies promulgated on 6 January 2007 do not “see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance” of the Ruthenian Rite. This Revision introduces changes that are not organic and harm the unity of Christians. The rubrical and textual changes are not organic (one cannot legislate organic change in advance). This Revision does not serve the mutual goodwill and unity of Christians because these changes make the Ruthenian Catholic Church liturgically different than other Byzantine Catholic Churches, effectively removing the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America from the Ruthenian Recension. They also make us different then other Orthodox Churches. [Please refer to my earlier post quoting the Liturgical Instruction.]

I realize and respect that you support the revision. Those of us who do not support the revision have every right to make our voices heard and to petition the Holy Father to rescind this Revised Liturgy and to insist that our bishops promulgate translations that give a complete and accurate rendering in English of the official Ruthenian liturgical books (free from political agendas like gender neutral language).

I disagree that it would be unproductive to fight this reform. It is always correct to fight that which is wrong. I have every confidence that the Revised Liturgy will be short lived. But if it is not short lived, even a 30 year effort to fight for what is is correct would be well worth the effort.

Wow! Thirty years! You have inspired me! It is very possible that I will still be alive 30 years from today. I suppose the revisionists better get used to me because I will be fighting for a very long time. May God grant me the patience, stamina, courage, charity, and love to run the good race--to fight the good fight.

You are absolutely correct. And it is written in the hearts of all men. It is the natural law. Inclusive language is a rejection of the revealed fact that God created man, male and female, to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is, as I think John Paul II has written, the foundational sacrament.

In the legal field, there has been for the last thirty years an attempt to get rid of "men" as an unmarked generic, which includes men, women and children. Along side that movement, there has been a purposeful attempt to destroy marriage, promote contraception, abortion and now a movement to give us "gay" marriage.

In the secular legal world the movement to get rid of "men" as an unmarked generic is closely associated with the evils I mention above.

For a sobering review of the law, look at this site:

http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=95

(Hadley Arkes is a first rate legal scholar and his comments are always very isightful. Daniel Robinson is also very good)

Then go here to look at

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/494.html


At the becket fund site look at the paper by Chai Feldblum:

http://www.becketfund.org/files/92708.pdf?PHPSESSID=b438b37c169a3eeb786822898944b8ad

Chai Feldblum is an accomplished law professor at Georgetown Univeristy. I believe she wrote the ADA--American Disability Act. She is also a lesbian and she is working hard on legislation to promote homosexual rights and homosexual marriage. A few years ago, legislation to promote homosexual rights, (equating it with rights based on religion, sex, color and national origin) missed passing the US Senate by one or two votes.

She believes that laws must be written so that if you oppose things like homosexual marriage, and rights based on homosexual orientation, society should have the right to punish you.

The Vatican watches the 'developments" in the law very closely. Cardinal Ratzinger's instruction on the Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between
Homosexual Persons issued in June 3, 2003, provides guidance. In
footnote 17, that document (which is available on the official Vatican website) referenced an earlier teaching by the same Congregation:



The 1992 document states:



So called gender inclusive language is a fraud and at its "roots" it is completely inorganic. It is no acccident that in the secular world, those who are purposefully promoting it are promoting evils which reject that fundamental truth that in the beginning God made man, male and female, to be frutiful and multiply.

lm, J.D.

Fr. Serge wrote:



On a much larger scale, someone else made that same point:



http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ensburg_en.html

And in the same lecture the Holy Father said this

I am byzantene Catholic I use the green book as cantor. Yes
please tell me the link between us


God Bless us All

no!