Would revisions to other services such as Presanctified, Vespers, Matins, Holy Week, Molebens, Parastas, Weddings, etc. done by the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh sui juris have to be approved by Rome before being released as well?

Just wondering...

Anyone? Clergy? Can someone answer this?

Also, what about the Triodion and Menaion??? Are the Uniontown translations that are so often used, "official?" Were they approved by Rome or are they "temporary usage" books?

According to the CCEO and the Litrugical Instruction the Metropolitan with the Council of Hierarchs is competent to legisalte liturgical matters for the Metropolia after sending the texts to Rome for its recognitio which is something different than approval.

The Basilian Books are not official but since they were all that we had for so long they were the unofficial standard as were many of Msgr. Levkulic's booklets.

Fr. Deacon Lance

1. The Revised Divine Liturgy does not provide for the “faithful protection and accurate observance of the [Ruthenian] rite."

2. The revisions enacted have been shown to not be those that have come about through organic progress.

3. The changes most certainly do not keep in mind the “mutual goodwill and unity of Christians” as they introduce disunity in official liturgical books where there was once unity. Even just considering the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches’ resolution from last September supporting the official books of the Ruthenian recension demonstrates that this canon has not been properly adhered to.

I am sure that the hierarchs are well-intentioned and believe themselves to have followed the Vatican directives. It is also evident from a review of the Vatican documents that they have not done so.

So let me get this straight. Any revision or translation needs to be sent to Rome for it's "recognitio?"

I've looked at my copy of the old pew book and it does not have an impritmatur or nihil obstat. Neither does the menaion that I have published by the Sisters of St. Basil, although the title page says "Compiled and adapted from approved sources," though I'm not sure how this was since they were new translations done for the Sisters. So none of these were "approved" but were used for years?

The new pew book does not either, though there is a letter in the foward saying it's "approved for use," along with the bishops' names, but no date or protocol number from Rome.

The Presanctified Liturgy book used currently in Passaic does have a nihil obstat and imprimatur. Does anyone know if it was sent to Rome for review?

John,

The Liturgikon was sent for the recognitio, the Pew Book was not nor does it need to be as I understand it. The Liturgikon carries the protocol# 99/2001, dated 3/31/2001

Of course the 2006 Liturgikon is the first official tranlation by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission since the CCEO was promulgated. I am unsure what the procedure was before that, obviously some Roman input was sought as the 1965 Liturgikon carries the protocol# 380/62, dated 12/10/1964

The Basilian Books drew material from the Byzantine Franciscan 2 Volume Horologion published in 1967/1968. The Basilian Books were published as follows: Vespers 1982 reprinted 1987, Festal Menaion 1985, Pentecostarion 1986, Matins 1989, Triodion 1995. So only the Triodion was published after the CCEO was promulgated. So yes they were used without the recognitio but with the exception of the Triodion they were published before this was required.

On the otherhand, Byzantine Daily Worship by Archbishop Joseph Raya (1st printing 1969) carries his own Imprimatur and a letter from Patriarch Maximos V ordering it to be the only translation used by English-speaking Melkites. Nothing from Rome in there.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

You are correct in the historical details you post.

Simply put, despite the best of intentions Canon 40 §1 and a whole lot of other requirements given from Vatican II to the Liturgical Instruction were not kept. The books containing the Revised Liturgy are neither complete nor accurate. The Revised Liturgies should be rescinded and editions that are 100% faithful to our Ruthenian Liturgical Tradition (as documented in the official books) should be promulgated.

As Catholics we have the right to appeal to Rome, especially in cases where the bishops are in error. I am praying that many will do so and that Rome will step in and correct the errors of our bishops.

John

John,

I agree fully that the faithful have the right to appeal. My worry is that if Rome declines to intervene, which I deem to be likley, the bad feelings shown so far will continue.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Bad feelings are not something that anyone wants to see.

But as you may know Father Deacon, bad feelings are not the opposite of love. Apathy is the opposite of love. And let me tell you, I know many Byzantine Catholics who, because of this new liturgy, have grown apathetic and wouldn't 'waste their time' (their words not mine) on appealing the new liturgy. Instead they just going to the UGCC or Orthodox Church without a complaint or wimper. Furthermore, many of these people are the younger people of our Eparchy with kids, which is a demographic that we desperately need. The powers that be may wish that all the fuss and protests over this will just go away. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Monomakh

Well, we can't have a group of Old Believers, since we apparently never did the Liturgy correctly to begin with.

The Administrator wrote:

"1. The Revised Divine Liturgy does not provide for the “faithful protection and accurate observance of the [Ruthenian] rite."

2. The revisions enacted have been shown to not be those that have come about through organic progress.

3. The changes most certainly do not keep in mind the “mutual goodwill and unity of Christians” as they introduce disunity in official liturgical books where there was once unity. Even just considering the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches’ resolution from last September supporting the official books of the Ruthenian recension demonstrates that this canon has not been properly adhered to.

I am sure that the hierarchs are well-intentioned and believe themselves to have followed the Vatican directives. It is also evident from a review of the Vatican documents that they have not done so."

I apologize for responding, since dialogue on these issues is impossible because of the presumptions that are being made. However, since the Liturgy has been promulgated, I will state one more time for the beneift of the readers the following rebuttal:

1. This is the Administrator's private opinion, based on the presumption that the only fidelity to the "Ruthenian tradition" is an absolute literal fidelity to the 1941 Liturgicon. The Oriental Congregation, which gave us the 1941 Liturgicon, disagrees, the Council of Hierarchs disagrees, and any reasonable reading of liturgical history will reveal vast areas of development.

2. "Have been shown" ??? By whom??? Most certainly the restoration of the presbyteral office/prayers is an organic development, a development which has been in place for over a century, and which has been recommended by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Church of Greece.

3. There is nothing - I repeat, nothing - in the new liturgicon that has not been done in an Orthodox Church. There is nothing that has not been proposed by some Orthodox Church. In fact, some of the most supportive statements on the Liturgy that I have received have been from Orthodox officials and published proposals by Orthodox scholars.

That "the Vatican" that is, the Oriental Congregation has "recognized" this liturgicon is what is evident and directly to the point.

As mentioned, I make this statement only for the benefit of the Byzantine Forum readers.

Personally, I find the Administrator's protestations that we are "well-intentioned" but wrong to be rather patronizing. The Liturgy has been my life-long study and I am neither stupid nor ignorant.

Fr. David

Thank you, Fr. David. As is very evident from your corpus of scholarly work, you are indeed neither stupid nor ignorant. In fact, you have demonstrated great knowledge combined with deep spiritual insight and have given the Church tremendous blessings. I thank you on behalf of all of the faithful whose lives have been so enriched by your ministry. I also applaud your steadfastness in the face of personal attacks and accusations -- you continue to speak the truth in love. May God reward you.

Fr John (Mack)

This is great news that you want to follow even the smallest minority of Orthodox Churches. The majority would even be better to follow then.

Will three verse antiphons and the little litanies be permitted then?

Also, since we are on an Orthodox kick, what time will Vespers be today at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh?
Will it be the same time next week, I'm going to be in the Pittsburgh area and would like to attend?

Monomakh

Father David writes that:

(my italics)

It's a big world, and Eastern Orthodoxy is a large Christian group, so I have no special reason to doubt the general truth of Father David's statement. Whether this new liturgicon is in any way representative of the consensus of Eastern Orthodoxy is another matter.

To my way of thinking, the chief problem lies, not so much in what has been added (which does not seem to be very much) as what is lacking and what has actually been removed.

I have never described Father David as being either stupid or ignorant - he is neither of those things. In areas where we disagree, that is likelier to arise from a different set of priorities rather than because either one of us might be a gibbering idiot.

My reading of liturgical history - even of "contemporary liturgical history", if I may allow myself what looks like an oxymoron (but isn't - what happened sixty seconds ago is now history but is still contemporary for a while) - tells me that the simple act of promulgation is no guarantee of acceptance, and still less does it guarantee whole-hearted acceptance.

Right now, I am eagerly awaiting volume VI of Father Archimandrite Robert Taft's multi-volume historical study of the Divine Liturgy, which I am told is now at the press. Knowing the speed at which Rome often works, that probably means that we may see the book in 2008, but it will be worth waiting for.

Fr. Serge

I thank Father David for his post.


I agree with Father David that this is my opinion. But I do have validation that it is a worthy one, one shared by many (as I have posted previously). Last September the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church made the following statement:

4. [We resolve] to inform the clergy and faithful of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) that the following documents concerning Divine Services, which were presented to the Eastern Churches by the Roman Apostolic See, are obligatory for the whole Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

1) The typikon on Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy published in Rome in 1953;

2) The document of the Second Vatican Council on liturgical matters “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)”;

3) Instructions for applying the liturgical prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, published by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches on January 6, 1996.

I have taken the time to contact several members of clergy in the UGCC with questions about this statement. They have assured me that the directives from the Synod of Bishops is quite clear – the texts and rubrics given in the official books published by Rome for the Ruthenian recension are the standard and will remain the standard for the UGCC. There is no plan to alter the Liturgy away from the official books. I do not speak Ukrainian but I have been assured that the liturgical books that have been translated (and are being translated) from Church Slavonic into modern Ukrainian are intended to be exacting translations (for both the liturgical texts and the rubrics).

In Section 21 of the Liturgical Instruction it states: “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.”

A review of the text and rubrics of the Revised Liturgy quickly reveals that it does not decrease the liturgical distance between us and Orthodoxy - it actually increases it. Further, it also ends the liturgical uniformity we share (on the official level) with other Byzantine Catholics! We can also see from Section 25 that this Revision does not fulfill the directive that “churches <sui iuris> of the same liturgical families that use the same language, sometimes within the same territory, normally requires that standard translations be used.” If anything, since we now have Liturgy that greatly differs from the common standard it makes working towards this goal more difficult.


Again, the praying of the presbyteral prayers may be on its way towards being an organic development. It is not yet common enough to qualify as an organic development (and there are no Orthodox or even other Byzantine Catholic Lituricons that mandate this). In fact, in some Orthodox Churches priests can be suspended for taking these prayer in the fashion now mandated by the Revised Liturgy. Father David recently quoted a recommendation by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. It “advised to read most of the Priestly Prayers of the Holy Eucharist with audible voice”. It did not mandate. If anything it supports the position I have consistently held since the beginning of these discussions - that priests be given the liberty to pray these prayers either quietly or audibly, thus creating the soil in which such a custom might develop organically. Clearly the Holy Synod is not doing more then creating such a condition for organic development. Our Church should not go further. I will also point out again the Liturgical Instruction only calls for “study” on this issue. It does not call for mandates to anticipate organic development.


I ask Father David again to please provide a listing of official Orthodox Liturgicons which abbreviate and revise the Divine Liturgy in this way.

There can be a huge difference between the officially promulgated Liturgicon by an Orthodox Church and what occurs in a specific local parish (there are still Orthodox parishes in certain jurisdiction that still do First Communion and May Crowning). Also, as noted above, the Liturgical Instruction makes clear that regarding Liturgy we are to “distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation [from the Orthodox Church].” When the Orthodox start modifying their official books then it will be time for us to modify the official books. Until then any change to the official books is premature and should not be done.


I have no doubt that what Father David states here is accurate. I also know that they approved the horrid Slovak Liturgicon a dozen or so years ago. It is possible that they did not give due attention to their review of that Slovak Liturgicon. It is also possible that they did not give due attention to the review of this Revised Liturgicon. We do know that they rescinded their approval for that Slovak edition. It is my hoping that the combined letters of those who are writing to express their disapproval will be cause for a re-examination the Revised Liturgicon, and that their approval for it will be rescinded.


Father David might be correct and I might be very wrong. Still, I have the right of appeal as does every Ruthenian Catholic.

I can assure Father David that I have never for one moment considered him to be either stupid or ignorant. I certainly have not written anything on this Forum that suggests I believe such a thing. In fact I have stated quite clearly on numerous occasions that I am sure that Father David has forgotten more about Liturgy then I will ever know. I continue to be puzzled that Father David seems to equate disagreement over issues with negative personal accusations. I submit for his consideration that it is possible for one man to admire and respect another man’s knowledge and intelligence and yet consider him wrong on some issues.

John

Father John,

Can you please post specific examples of personal attacks and accusations against Father David? I see lots of disagreement on issues and occasional over-emotion but no personal attacks. If you cannot provide any specific references I must ask you to please refrain from making false accusations.

John / Admin

It seems to me, John, that reporting things that have been said about Fr. David is to perpetuate gossip and thus inappropriate on many levels--especially during the Fast. I have heard people say unfair and unkind words about Fr. David as people have tried to "recruit" me to their side. I will not give you their names, nor do I think it would be appropriate. I know that he has heard negative statements as well -- I applaud his steadfastness and perseverance.

I do think, however, that there is a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes charitable discourse. I know that I am not the only one with this opinion. I have heard from people who no longer participate in this Forum precisely for this reason.

I honestly applaud the Liturgical Commission for their work and truly feel that they had the best interests of the Metropolia at heart, since the new liturgy is more than likely a step up for many parishes, if it will be taken as written in the new liturgikon. However I cannot applaud the use of such innovations as a "vesperal Liturgy" which to my knowledge is only the norm for Holy Thursday, Christmas, Easter, and perhaps Annunciation. I also understand that if people can't go to mass in their parish on Saturday evenings, they'll probably go to a RC church, so it's better to have a such a liturgy and keep people in their parishes.

And yes it's true that New Skete, a few newer OCA parishes, and some of the parishes that were received into the Antiochian Archdiocese from the Evangelical Orthodox church have made some of the changes that are now in our liturgikon. However they are not all that wide spread and I understand that Met. Philip clamped down on some of these changes as well.

New Skete is not a good example as they are a monastic foundation, but there is a following in the OCA at large that supports and from what I understand, have tried to implement some of their revisions in parochial life. I attended the Vigil (vespers/matins combination) for a great feast there last year, and unfortunately it barely felt Orthodox, which was quite a disappointment. But for those who appreciate shorter services, it was done in one hour exactly, litya and all.

This is true. I am middle age and kept doing a yo-yo back and forth between washing my hands of the whole thing by running to the OCA--and staying in the Church to fight for a retraction. I have decided to fight. I have sent five letters to Rome. I will do what I can to fight for the retraction of this revision. At some point, if all the faithful are ignored by Rome, I will have to make a very difficult decision.

Father John,

Thank you for your post.

I am very puzzled by your post. You need not actually publicly post the specific examples of posts that you believe have been unkind to Father David (or anyone else). The Forum offers a “Notify” feature by which you make bring such posts to the attention of the moderators. It also offers a Private Message feature by which you can send examples to me. As far as I can tell you have not made much use of these features to bring such examples to the attention of moderators or administrators for review. We do not receive all that many complaints about posts, but when we do receive them we investigate them and if they are found to be accurate we act. At this point I must ask you to provide specific examples of what you consider to be uncharitable or stop making such accusations.

Yes, different people do often look at things differently. For me charitable discourse is when people can agree or disagree and not be disagreeable or uncivil. In the discussions on Liturgy I can respect the education, intelligence and love for the Church by someone like Father David while disagreeing with him. My disagreement is not mere ignorance because I can find much support for the positions I advance in the official Vatican documents on Liturgy, the writings of the current Holy Father (and other scholars) and elsewhere.

I do know that some equate any disagreement with their personal opinions as an uncharitable personal attack. That is unfortunate and those who feel that way should not participate in public forums where people are free to disagree with them.

Yes, I do hear occasionally from people that they have chosen not to participate here because they feel that people have been uncharitable with their responses. Sometimes posters have lost privileges because of their uncharity. Mostly, however, when I investigate such claims of uncharity it turns out that the poster who is complaining has withdrawn because he found that people disagreed with him and that he could not come to terms with it (defend his position / whatever).

John / Admin

Thank you, John, for pointing out what every academic should be mature and objective enough to know and understand - that there are those who will have disagreements with a corpus of academic work and will not agree with nor support conclusions of that work.

That does not equate to an insinuation of being "stupid or ignorant", nor does polite and charitable debate result in "patronizing". That response in itself is extremely disturbing regarding the reception of objective comments and criticism to the work of the Commission. I ask all here to look at this very, very closely.

I also know people who will not participate on this Forum anymore because they do not feel any dissenting comments or observations to the New Ruthenian Rite will end up with anything more than this kind of dismissive attitude.

I also am puzzled by Fr. John's comment regarding discourse, as I believe it was actually he who commented on this very Forum that many of the academic discussions he participates in are as heated, if not moreso, than those here.

I rather thank God that there are those concerned about and love their faith enough to say or do something, whether for or against the New Rite. Let everyone be heard. I am in science as a profession, and have been involved in discussions of research and conclusions far more heated and involved than these. There is nothing I hate more than to see observations or criticism quelled or dismissed.

While there are many aspects of the New Rite I don't agree with, I called for optional implementation many months ago - let the merits of the New Rite stand for itself. Voluntary performance is always a fairly objective yardstick. Let's see really and truly what pastors and communities want the New Rite without a forced implementation. But we will have to see what that lack of objectivity and economia brings in the longer run. Very intolerant, and ignoring a potentially large population of clergy and faithful, looking at it as a whole.

Posted by IM in the topic about the revision of the Presanctified Liturgy from LA:

"80. The practice of seeking the recognitio from the Apostolic See for all translations of liturgical books56 accords the necessary assurance of the authenticity of the translation and its correspondence with the original texts. (my comment: HUH?) This practice both expresses and effects a bond of communion between the successor of blessed Peter and his brothers in the Episcopate. Furthermore, this recognitio is not a mere formality, but is rather an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force); and modifications even substantial ones may be introduced by means of it.57

For this reason it is not permissible to publish, for the use of celebrants or for the general public, any liturgical texts that have been translated or recently composed, as long as the recognitio is lacking. Since the lex orandi must always be in harmony with the lex credendi and must manifest and support the faith of the Christian people, the liturgical translations will not be capable of being worthy of God without faithfully transmitting the wealth of Catholic doctrine from the original text into the vernacular version, in such a way that the sacred language is adapted to the dogmatic reality that it contains.58"

I guess that finally answers the questions I had when I started this topic and no one could or would seem to answer. The recognitio IS NOT merely a prefunctory once-over by Rome, but "an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary."

Also, the second paragraph speaks of publishing liturgical texts for use without the recognitio. What about using unpublished texts that may have a recognitio but that recognitio is unknown to the church at large? Also, what constitutes "publishing?" I'm sure that the church has a definition for that too.