The meaning of the word "Liturgy" translates as "a work of the people."

Why did the people and most of the clergy have no part in the revision?

Because then we might actually end up closer to our Ukrainian Greek Catholic brethern and our Orthodox brethern as well in rubrics and liturgy.

Which is interesting, because this revision may cause many to end up in the above mentioned jurisdictions.

Monomakh

Interesting observation. Yesterday being the feast of the Annuciation, posed extra difficulties with the new Liturgy books. Our parish was confused and frustrated. It is very sad because the people were really coming together before this revision. One could sense the unity and the deepening of prayer in our community. Now there is a sense of chaos and depression. It really hurts.

Recluse, could you please elaborate on the confusion which took place using the new Liturgy books? In one liturgy I attended the congregation had to flip back and forth between Tone 1 (p.41) and the Annunciation propers in the black book; and in another there was flipping in the green book between pages 125 (Tone 1) and pp. 328-331 (Annunciation). Also available was the MCI propers which combined both sets of propers.

Greetings Zeeker,

Glory To Jesus Christ!

Yes. The majority of the confusion yesterday was caused by the frantic flipping through multiple sections. In addition, some of our parish are upset about the inclusive language, others dislike the new music, and still others are unhappy with the layout of the new books. Combine all of this, and you have a once prayerful and united parish thrown into confusion, depression, and disarray.

Sounds like "Mass" confusion.

Recluse,

How is your congregation being told of which propers to use for the Liturgy? Is it being announced before the Liturgy, during the Liturgy or is there a handout noting the pages where the ribbons can be placed?

There is a handout indicating where to place the ribbons and an announcement before the Liturgy. Neither seems to help much.

Recluse,


Do you expect there to be no learing curve as people get used to a new book, translations and music?

Even if there were no new translation and music, there was still the need to add additional settings and the music notes. The Pew Book would have been very much the same.

People have to flip no matter what book they are using if they are going to sing the propers, especially when a major feast coincides with a Sunday. You have to flip between Sunday Tone and Festal pages.

Other than the new books have mutilple settings for propers like Trisagion, Cherubicon, and Our Father what is the difference? Are our people to stupid to look at a handout a place ribbons appropriately? I don't think so. I would much prefer a handout than the cantor breaking the chant to announce page numbers throughout the service as is the practice in some places.

It is going to take a while to get used to the new book, or any new book. The Byzantine Liturgy contains too many propers to not have to expect to flip pages unless we want to give up congregational chanting of propers and leave it to the cantor alone as some Byzantine Churches have done.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Recluse,

Father Deacon is right; patience does help. At our parish in Endicott, NY, we are in the third week of using the new books. For this Sunday, we were down to announcing the page number a total of four times in a 70 minute service; from the choir loft it was fairly easy to see that the vast majority of the faithful were on the current page in the ordinary parts of the service. We did not announce the pages for the propers, just the tone and the feast day, and perhaps a third found those parts themselves. We're already hearing people harmonizing to the new settings in thirds. Several people WERE slightly disappointed that we didn't sing "In you, O woman full of grace" this Sunday, since now they actually have written-out music for it.

Our pastor has counselled patience, and reminds people at the start of each Liturgy that we are there to pray and to offer the holy sacrifice, not to worry about whether we stumble here and there over the changes. He reminded us of that we went through the same familiarization process with the first English liturgies, and again in 1965 and 1970, and once more in the 1990's. (He also took me aside after the Liturgy and told me that he knows he is now supposed to be doing the ablutions after the Liturgy, in accordance with the Ordo, and plans to start, but this particular Sunday he was trying to make it through the rest of the Liturgy and was saving that change to make next.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Fr Deacon and Byzkat,

You are both entitled to your opinion and I appreciate that. Personally, I do not think a new translation was necessary--only the promulgation of the Ruthenian rescension. I have invited protestants to Liturgy and they found their way around rather quickly--and they had never experienced the Liturgy! No, I do not think our people are stupid--I think they are rather intelligent--hence they would like to see the revision retracted. Furthermore, no amount of "getting used to" will ever convince people to accept inclusive language when their hearts' tell them it is wrong.

But I digress! Neither of you answered my original question. Why were the people and the clergy not involved? Surely it was not because we were thought to be unintelligent?

Peace and blessings,
Recluse

I am getting confused.Does 'liturgy' imply the 'work of the people in translating' or 'a work of the people' in worship? Aren't thees two separate things? I would think so.

I once attended a class in comparative religions, especially in Christianity and the professor said that one of the main differences between east and western christias (I guess he meant orthodox anc catholic) is that western catholics change their mass wholesale at once and eastern ones change incrementally (frog in the frying pan method). My wonder is if this translation is a wholesale change or an incremental one? My byzcath friends tell me thta only the mass was changed but not all the other services. This is confusing - a shortcut wholesale change? Why only the mass andnot all the other services? Did they translate the Bible too?


another thing confusing to me-- if they relied on a good Bible why all this talk about inclusive language? Is'nt the bible being quoted properly? I remember the 'children' of God words and not 'sons' of God. I looked it up in all my bibles and only the Catholic NAB uses it. I have access to the ancient manuscripts (internet and books)and none of them use 'children' of God.thta is a sixtish theobabble Am I right? .are your shepherds altering the word of God to suit them like Luther did? I hope they don't continue to introduce more traditions of men

Tell me more. Thanks,Ed H.