If the RDL is retracted by Rome, does anyone know the process? Will new books be pulled from the pews? Will the people who helped to pay for the new books be refunded? Will there be another written statement from our hierarchs?

Is there any prior history for a retraction of a revision taking place? How long did it take? What are the chances of a retraction?

KEEP WRITING LETTERS!!!

That would be a miracle indeed! I don't think anyone will be refunded money. I believe that due to the great amount of money spent on the reform, it will probably not be retracted. I think many parishes will try to adapt the new text and try to modify the music in order to make it more singable.

U-C

As your undersigned humble servant has noted several times, yes, there is precedent for such a retraction - the most recent one that I am aware of is that incredible Slovak Liturgikon which was eventually retracted after a torrent of protests. And there are other examples.

Fr. Serge

Bless Father,

Do you recall the time frame from promulgation to retraction?

The Blessing of the Lord!

That ghastly Slovak Thing was published in 1986 - with, I am told, an oral permission from Cardinal Lourduswamy, then Prefect of the Oriental Congregation - and was retracted about 10 years later. I cherish my copy - it reminds me of the important principle "Never Give Up!".

I only observed the book being used once (and once was once too often, let me tell you!). The normal Divine Liturgy in Church-Slavonic was also still in use in the Eparchy of Preshov. Finally the pressure was too much, and they produced a remarkably accurate translation of the 1941 Church-Slavonic "Ruthenian Recension" Divine Liturgy, which is now in use. I have it, but since it was sent to me over the Internet, I don't have the publication date.

Fr. Serge

Fr.Serge,

Oral permission, from an Indian Cardinal who most likely does not speak Slovak? It sounds as if Bishop Jan published that heavily latinizied edition on his own intiative with a wink and a nod from a latinizing prefect without any real recognitio from Rome. If published in 1986 this was before the promulgation of the CCEO and the Instruction and interestingly enough the same year the Insturction was promulgated the 86 Slovak edition was forbidden.

Given the above circumstances I don't think the introduction of the 86 Slovak and the promulagtion of the 06 English can really be compared. The 06 translation was reviewed by the Oriental Congregation by competent liturgists who fluently read and speak English and with much back and forth discussion and input from Rome.

Fr. Deacon Lance

How many years transpired between the recognito and the promulgation and how many of the changes that have been decried here were added after the recognito was signed.

Mary

Thank you, Lance, for your observations. There are major differences between the 1986 Slovak Liturgy and the Liturgy recognized by Rome now. To try to paint them with the same brush is a cheap shot.
Interestingly, Fr. Serge in his book cites the promulgation of Bishop Emil in 1970 with favor. (I was a part of that promulgation, by the way.) The real life fact in actual parish practice is that the current Liturgy in real life brings us much closer to standard Byzantine practice than the 1970 promulgation did, yet this is condemned. Why????? It's simple, really, it's all a matter of what is written in the book. From many of the Administrator's comments also, we see that the main issue might actually be: What is written in the official books? It seems to me that what then actually happens in parishes is irrelevant. Bishop Emil's promulgation said, "the priest may," not "the priest must," and that's the whole difference. Of course, Bishop Emil's promulgation was a miserable failure, he didn't push the promulgation after the other bishops leaned on him, and - remember, I was on the scene - the priests almost universally considered his pastoral abbreviations as the norm, not the 1965 Liturgicon. The same thing is true for the Orthodox - pastoral practice on the parish level is quite variable, but again, it's a "book thing." They haven't, up to this point, changed the books - though that will come eventually. So, again, our Liturgy actually in real life in the real world brings us closer to the Orthodox. I would call the approach advocated by some on the Forum a "Gutenberg Fundamentalist" approach, that is, what is printed is what is important. I think what we have done is more honest and better expresses the spirit of the Byzantine Liturgy. At the same time, I would consider the use of some inclusive language a separate issue. If the Liturgy is retracted???? The Metropolia would just revert to the mediocre somewhat-Westernized Liturgy that most parishes celebrate anyhow.
In regard to Elijahmaria's question - five years transpired between the recognitio and the promulgation, most of it due to a change of administration. How many of the "changes decried here" were added after the recognitio? None - zero - nothing - every change made was, in fact, because of the recognitio and in conformity with its recommendations. Nothing was "slipped in" to "water down" the Liturgy.

The "change of administration" has also so far failed to eliminate Altar Girls and ad popularem. (Not to mention the entire Latin Rite Novus Ordo fiasco)

Yes, I decry these abominations as well, but the "recognitio" is still there as well.

A Happy and Blessed Great and Holy Week! Behold the Bridal Chamber!

This is not the first time that Father David has expressed his wonderment at my praise for Bishop Emil's promulgation of the Ordo Celebrationis - I fully realize (and I already knew) that Father David had been on the scene for it, but I still fail to grasp why I should not regard that promulgation as something to be welcomed.

I have not painted the Slovak 1986 horror with the same brush as either the 2004 "final draft" or the Green Book. I was asked for a specific example of a book being retracted, and I gave one; that is all. So far.

But suggesting that the Liturgy as presented in the Green Book fulfills the 1996 Instruction is unwarranted, and is certainly not supported by the text of that Instruction.

Whether Rome has or hasn't given its "Good Church-Keeping Seal of Approval" to this latest revision remains to be seen - we have still not been vouchsafed even a glimpose of the letter(s) in which, we are asked to believe, that approval is expressed.

Fr. Serge

Deacon Lance: <<Oral permission, from an Indian Cardinal who most likely does not speak Slovak?>>
Does the present Syrian Cardinal Prefect of the Oriental Congregation speak English fluent enough to judge whether our English "translation" is accurate?

Only once did I have the pleasure of conversing with Cardinal Lourduswamy {note, please, I said that I had the pleasure - not that he had any pleasure out of it!]. We conversed in English, and I did not ask whether he knew any Slovak. Oddly enough, though, one would only need to know the Byzantine Liturgy to know that something was seriously wrong with that 1986 book.

I may have met Patriarch Ignatius Moussa Daoud, the current Prefect, on one or another occasion when I was visiting the Middle East, but if I did I honestly don't remember it. Anyway, in the Middle East when meeting Eastern Catholic hierarchs and clergy, I would automatically speak French. I'm told that His Beatitude does not speak English.

Fr. Serge

Yes Father. You might even say this is inevitable. I am not a gambling man, but I would wager to say that when this change occurs, it will not have inclusive language.

I disagree with this statement. I believe it further separates us from the Orthodox and other Eastern Catholics.

Father, does this mean that there may be a partial retraction where the Traditional language of our Liturgy is restored?!? Or perhaps a letter is forthcoming whereby the clergy and the people are notified it is okay to say "men", "man" and "mankind", even though it is not printed that way in "the book"?

I wait in hopeful anticipation!

Bless Father,

Yes. That is the question I had asked. Thank you for answering.

Dear Recluse,

That is precisely why I asked you, I believe (and one other), if "inclusive language" was your primary objection to the liturgical changes.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

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?