Absolutely Jeff. I thought I had made that abundantly clear on this forum. I believe that the inclusive language is a grave error. Here is my summary:

1. Inclusive language is a grave error.
2. The music changes are too complicated for the people
(most of which do not read music).
3. The new books cause much confusion.

The difficulties with numbers two and three could possibly be lessened in time. But I will fight with all by being for the eradication of inclusive language in The Divine Liturgy.

Peace and blessings to you,
Recluse

Again it depends on which end of the elephant you are standing when you ask the question about Orthodoxy and the new Byzantine Order. If you stand where I am standing you'd find that there's little enthusiasm at all for the current so-called Ruthenian text.

Inclusive language, abbreviated and missing text, and the untranslated 'gettin' ready to pray a prayer in peace' are major and glaring dischords to every Orthodox priest and liturgical historian that has spoken to me of the changes...genuine clunkers, I'd say.

Some of it does meet with Orthodox approval as far as I can see, but not enough of the "new" to mime in any substantial way. Most of what is met with approval are those rubrics and textual elements that are already in place in Orthodox divine liturgies. So it is not, in their eyes, as though we've made any great leap forward, and in some substantial ways have leaped out into the Swamp of Rotten Texts.

I hope you realize that I do not pursue any of this to be nasty to you personally. My Church has made her attitude toward me abundantly clear over the past couple of years and I have found respite among my Orthodox brothers and sisters. But I have not given up on my Church nearly as profoundly as she has rejected me, and I speak here with real concern in my mouth and in my heart.




Thank you. If you don't mind I have a couple more questions:

Have any changes to the liturgy been removed/rescinded since the recognito?

Is the text in Father Serge's book a text from before or after the recognito?

Mary

I would add:

Lack of the word 'Orthodox' and use of 'Christians of the True Faith'.

One verse antiphons

Omission of Little Litanies

etc.

A good way to put it would be 'Full Liturgy' instead of 'chopped up'.

Monomakh

Yes. But I have chosen to pick my battles--one at a time.

I thank Father David for his post (it was actually written to Father Deacon Lance but it contains a number of points I would like to respond to).


Father David is mixing up two different discussions: 1) the first about the content of the 1970 and the 2007 promulgations and 2) the second about the willingness of the bishops to provide leadership to enact change. [For a short response substitute “official Ruthenian Liturgy” for “current Liturgy” and you will see that Father David is mixing apples and oranges.]

On the first point, I submit for Father David’s consideration that it was not necessary to revise the Liturgy in order to raise the “as celebrated” standard in the parishes. The Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension is a masterpiece developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It works. Unlike the Revised Liturgy people find it very attractive. I have seen a few parishes that were almost lifeless and had a much abbreviated Liturgy become incredibly vibrant simply by embracing the official Ruthenian Liturgy in its fullness. In my travels for my job I have visited many Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox parishes for Sunday and / or feast day Vespers / Matins / Divine Liturgies. I have seen a direct correlation between the fullness of the liturgical celebration according to the official books of that recension and the vibrancy of the parish. I have absolutely no doubt that if in 1970 the bishops 1) promulgated the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension, 2) celebrated themselves according the fullness of the Ruthenian recension wherever they went and 3) ordered that the liturgical praxis at the seminary be a full and exacting celebration according to the official books that the “as celebrated” in the vast majority of our parishes would have be much closer to that given in the official Slavonic books. I further have no doubt that when this revision is rescinded if the bishops take these steps we will see a gradual rise in “as celebrated” over the coming years. The Liturgy is not the problem. We are (the bishops, clergy and people). In so many places we have lost the experience of the fullness of our own Liturgy that we no longer have the common experience of how wonderful it is, how much it can enliven the Church, and how much we need it to form our Church. Rome clearly appreciates this since in the Liturgical Instruction (18) it tells us clearly that “[t]he 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.

On the second point, the real difference in the method of promulgation between 1970 and 2007 is that today we seem to have bishops who are willing to issue mandates and then enforce them. I submit for Father David’s consideration that if the Revised Liturgy does indeed become celebrated close to that given in the new books it is not because of the quality or content of those books it is because the bishops are willing to follow through on mandates. I further suggest for his consideration that if they were willing to stand with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Synod in proclaiming the Ruthenian liturgical books as normative for our Church (in their fullness) and enforce them, the result would be the raising up of the “as celebrated” to the level of the official books instead of to that of the Revised Liturgy.

But I am not in favor of enforced mandates (as I have repeatedly stated). Mandates don’t generate enthusiasm and priests without enthusiasm will not lead parishes to a vibrant celebration of the Liturgy in any Church. The better way here (to state again) is for the bishops to 1) promulgate the official Ruthenian recension books as our norm and issue translations of them that are as literal as possible while also being as elegant as possible (and respecting that people have most of the current texts memorized, so changing only what is absolutely necessary), 2) celebrate the full Ruthenian recension wherever they go and 3) direct that the seminary celebrate according to the official books (full and exact) and 4) issue a Liturgical Instruction that establishes the absolute minimum (say everything given in the Levkulic Pew Book as the current minimum, to be adjusted higher in 5-10 years as the celebration does rise). We certainly know that there is a set of clergy who are older will not change no matter what. Let them alone until they retire. At the very least we will eventually wind up with a new set of priests and deacons who were fed and formed with the official Liturgy in the seminary. It would, of course, take a few generations to replace all the clergy who were not properly formed with the official Liturgy. I have no doubt, however, that within a few years of celebrating the full Liturgy we would see more vocations to the deaconate and priesthood coming forward. [Simply put the Ruthenian Liturgy is very attractive to people.]


Father David sums up the problem quite nicely. The problem in 1970 was not with the 1965 Red Book but with the lack of hierarchical support for the official Ruthenian Liturgy. As I stated above, I have no doubt with good leadership and example the “as celebrated” in our parishes can be raised much closer to that given in the official Ruthenian books in not too long a time period. In 1970 the bishops were unwilling to show leadership for what was correct. Now, in 2007, we have the bishops willing to show leadership to do what is wrong.


There is a slow but steady restoration going on in the Orthodox Church. We see the Greeks experimenting with adding the three antiphon verses back (rather than simply chanting the troparion “through the prayers of the Mother of God….” three times without verses), and discussions and experimentation with adding back the missing litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn. We see the OCA parishes adding back all of the litanies (the ones here in and around the nation’s capital don’t omit a single litany). We see some Johnstown parishes slowly adding back what was missing. We see ROCOR parishes that have maintained full and correct Liturgy thriving. The trend is not towards reform (either picking customs from the past or inventing new ones), it is towards restoration (according to what is official).

But even if everything Father David has promoted is indeed happening in more than a few Orthodox parishes, we can see that the Liturgical Instruction (21) clearly tells us to keep our official books the same as those in the Orthodox Church: 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. There is no question that there is always experimentation in every Church. It is very questionable that the Orthodox Church will update her books anytime soon and we are to match them at this official level. We should certainly never prohibit the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the official books we share with the Orthodox (as this liturgical revision does). If Father David considers me a “Gutenberg Fundamentalist” because I strongly support that we follow the Liturgical Instruction (and renew, be formed, and then update officially only with the Orthodox) then he is free to do so. I see great wisdom and value in the Liturgical Instruction, as it means that we can work together with both other Byzantine Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches to keep our common heritage common. The Liturgical Instruction (29) sums it up well in stating that the official books must be kept the same with Such a wish is repeated anew in the general terms of the Ecumenical Directory n. 187 which exhorts the use of liturgical texts in common with other Churches or ecclesial Communities, because "when Christians pray together, with one voice, their common testimony reaches the heavens and is understood also on earth."

I strongly disagree that the Revised Liturgy is “more honest and better expresses the spirit of the Byzantine Liturgy.” Sorry, but the Byzantine Liturgy in its official form already wonderfully expresses the spirit of the Byzantine Liturgy. Forcing change rather than allowing organic development (and all change that is forced is by definition not organic) is wrong. The better path is maintain the official standard, give example to the official standard while leaving ample soil for organic development to occur. Such a path is not only more open to the Spirit it also avoids division in the Church.


I agree with Father David that so-called general neutral language is a different issue. It is wrong and the Vatican keeps reaffirming that it is not to be used.


I prefer changing “if” to “when”, but I will go on to disagree with Father David. When the Revised Liturgy is rescinded the best course of action is that which I outlined above, but will state again:

The bishops should:

1) promulgate the official Ruthenian recension books as our norm and issue translations of them that are as literal as possible while also being as elegant as possible (and respecting that people have most of the current texts memorized, so changing only what is absolutely necessary)

2) celebrate the full Ruthenian recension wherever they go

3) direct that the seminary celebrate according to the official books (full and exact)

4) issue a Liturgical Instruction that establishes the absolute minimum (say everything given in the Levkulic Pew Book as the current minimum, to be adjusted higher in 5-10 years as the celebration does rise). We certainly know that there is a set of clergy who are older will not change no matter what. Let them alone until they retire. At the very least we will eventually wind up with a new set of priests and deacons who were fed and formed with the official Liturgy in the seminary. It would, of course, take a few generations to replace all the clergy who were not properly formed with the official Liturgy. I have no doubt, however, that within a few years of celebrating the full Liturgy we would see more vocations to the deaconate and priesthood coming forward. [Simply put the Ruthenian Liturgy is very attractive to people.]

Dear Adminsitrator:

Your plan of action is superb and makes a lot of sense. Seek the real common good and growth and life will happen. That is nature's law--God's law. I would only comment on this one point:



In my opinion, the inclusive language issue just represents the apex of the problem and how far off the mark the RDL is. When men are willing to change the Creed to conform with modernity, what wouldn't they be willing to change? The RDL won't be fixed simply by correcting the so called "inclusive language," because that is but the sign of a larger problem which you have addressed.

Also, I get terribly nervous when men start speaking about the "spirits" of things, be they Vatican II or the Byzantine Liturgy. How many aberrations in liturgy and in doctrine have been made in the last 40 years in the name of the "spirit?" Living human spirits have flesh and blood, and need living bones to make then stand upright and function. When spirits are left floating around by themselves, however, that means that there are skeletons somewhere in dark places.

Dear Administrator and Im,

The two of you have wonderfully solved this tragedy. It is really a matter of common sense. Is there any chance that you both may become bishops one day?