In January 2007 Metropolitan Basil Schott, Archbishop of Pittsburgh promulgated a complete revision of the major Divine Liturgies (Chrysostom and Basil) of the Byzantine Catholic Church. These Revised Divine Liturgies now create for the first time formal liturgical distinctions between Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics and both other Byzantine Catholics (Ukrainian, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, and etc.) as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians. Formally they shared the same original Church Slavonic service books. With this promulgation Metropolitan Basil (Schott) has the distinction of being the first Catholic bishop to win Vatican approval for the use of so-called "inclusive language" in liturgical texts (better known as gender neutral language). The changes also imitate some of the changes made to the Roman Catholic Mass after Vatican II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Catholic_Metropolitan_Church_of_Pittsburgh

It would be interesting to know who wrote this. I've heard the claim that we are "imitating the Roman Catholics" - and the supposed links were pretty vague. Can someone who believes this list those places in which you think it has occured in the new liturgical books?

Jeff

To call the current Pittsburgh liturgical reform “Latin” is a bit too vague. It appears to me that it is, more accurately, a revision based upon many of the liturgical principles espoused by many of the 1970’s post-Vatican II Latins. That is most definitely a mindset that the Vatican is trying to change, as we can see with the current effort to undo some of the damage done in the Latin Church “in the spirit of Vatican II” with the recent Vatican directives for authenticity in Liturgy.

But to give a general response to the question, Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful. Liturgy is celebrated for God. It is meant to be pleasing to God. Catechesis at the Divine Liturgy comes not from hearing the prayers prayed but from participation in the Divine Light. This reform attempts to make the Liturgy more catechetical in nature which, however well-intended, in the end really only makes it all about man. Look at the example of the mandatory praying of many of the prayers aloud (for just one example). Supporters of the reform have posted that these prayers need to be prayed aloud for the people, thus taking the Liturgy and making it less about God and more about an instructive element for the people. That is not Byzantine. It’s really not good Latin liturgical theology, either. That is why the various attempts at this type of reform in Parma in the late 1980s and in Passaic about 10 years ago have never met with great acceptance from the clergy and faithful.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hits this point very strongly in a speech from 1999:


Those demanding change are the ones who ought to defend the change. Perhaps someone who supports the change can present us with a listing of the specific rubrical and textual changes and explain how each one brings us closer to the official Ruthenian Liturgical Books or other Byzantine Liturgical Books (Orthodox and/or Catholic) in a way that the 1964 translation (the “Red Book”) did not? I'd like to hear why they believe Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is wrong and the reformers are right.

That Pope is one heavy thinker. Do any byzcath bishops teach as deeply? i like the point about how worship was for God, not onlookers. Boy! that really calls it like it is. why is the Pope saying one thing and this bishop Schott saying another? I take it that this bishop Schott is the one responsible for all this havoc? in this case, who are the onlookers for bishop Schott? and in what he is doing for God or for man? or "us?"
Eddie

Pace Cardinal Ratzinger, the Liturgy is not for the salvation of God, who has no need of our sacrifices, it is "for us and for our salvation," that Christ died on the Cross, and that we "commemorate" or "remember" this salvation in our worship. I think a false conclusion has been drawn from the Cardinal's meditation, that "Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful." If this is true, the Liturgy is useless for both God and "men." John's approach would lead to a false obscurantism, in which the prayers designed to aid us to remember God's transcendent love for us are muffled. Of course, the Liturgy is meant for the faithful, so that the non-baptized and non-communicants were dismissed before the mystery.

Fr. David (bless),

I think you'd agree that Liturgy is for the people but should always be ABOUT God. If the Liturgy is focused on the people instead of on God, it becomes a therapy session or motivational speech in ritualized form.

It becomes a protestant worship service.

M.

I'd dare to say that even most protestant worship services are generally about God and not the people, except for the Unitarians and liberal wings of protestantism.

This may allow two different answers. Apart from the abridgement of the 2007 liturgicon relative to the 1965 ("Red Book"), the extent of rubrical changes differs depending on whether the standard is that the Ruthenian Recension is followed or "other Byzantine Liturgical Books (Orthodox and/or Catholic)" are followed. Many of the numerous rubrical departures of the 2007 RDL from the Ruthenian Recension / Ordo would probably not be picked up by the people; many can be traced to the Rome 1950 Greek liturgicon. Hence my question, "what is the present status of the recension books."

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/237147/page/1#Post237147

Let me recall here too that the 1965 liturgicon is a faithful and complete translation of the liturgy in the "1942 Ruthenian Recension." Yes, it can be improved, it is not perfect. I find it bewildering, however, that since 1965 we have had this complete and nicely done English version of the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy -- the holy grail in a sense of our liturgical renewal -- and I, and I dare say most, have never experienced it. And just like the comment about Christianity itself, it seems one can not say that it has failed because one can not say it has actually been tried.

Dn. Anthony

Posted by AJK:


Two parishes I know of in Ohio celebrate the Red Book and are very successful at it -- and it appears that no one is to know of their success. It's been told to me that, "we would lose half our people if the Red Book were enforced, because after all who would stay for an hour and ten minute Liturgy, especially the people in Pennsylvania."

Additionally, one priest from Europe told me the Red Book is near perfect, aside from a few changes that need to be made to the rubrics.

Why have we thrown out this translation? Why not 'fix' the music, but keep the translation?

Sad, sad, sad.

An hour and ten minutes?

You think thats tough? Us Syro-Malankarese and our Syriac and Malankara brethren sometimes "tough it out" three to four hours (not including Pesacha, Holy Friday, etc)

I note that a Wiki user, unidentified except by IP, has deleted all but the first sentence of the quoted wikipedia text with the notation "(Deleted unsupported, inflammatory remarks on the revised divine liturgy.)"

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

As you are probably aware, Wikipedia has been rocked by scandal and controversy as of late, including the removal of an editor when it was found that his credentials were bogus. Users can post material and at times it can be rather subjective. My guess is that the new editorial policy is tending to shy away from anything that can be controversial as far as new entries. Also, whoever posted the entry may not have had the proper credentials for the entry and it was removed by the editorial board.

Since their recent scandal, I tend to rely on them less and I take their entries with a grain of salt and check other sources.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

As a school librarian, I forbid my students to use Wikipedia as a source for research. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source. Stick with sources whose authority is verifiable and backed by reputable organizations.

I find it rather coincidental that this paragraph was deleted after it was posted here. I agree with Fr Anthony that the wikipedia articles can often lack a degree of accuracy. However, I believe this particular statement, (which has been deleted), is fairly accurate:

With this promulgation Metropolitan Basil (Schott) has the distinction of being the first Catholic bishop to win Vatican approval for the use of so-called "inclusive language" in liturgical texts (better known as gender neutral language).

Good Wikipedia articles exist, and they are often heavily annotated. The RDL could be criticized for sure on Wikipedia, but you should have to substantiate your claim with references. You know, "Scholarship", something most people these days seem to have a bit of trouble with. As if Opinion matters: you know what they say about opinions, they're like.... well, you know what they say.

I saw an article that said at least concerning science articles, Wikipedia is more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The information was added by an Oregonian and removed by a Montanan. Considering the emotionally charged wording of the commentary, I would suspect it wasn't the Wikipedia editorial staff who removed it.

Oh please...drop words from the Liturgy and Creed and complain about false conclusions false obscurantism and prayers being muffled. Let's look at the real facts! The jury is still on who is making the false claims.

I thank Father David for his post, even as I disagree with what he has written.

Regarding the content of his post that states “the Liturgy is not for the salvation of God” I can only ask him to explain his comments further if he wishes a response since I have never suggested that God is need of salvation. Father David makes a conclusion that I do not make and then calls it false.

To quote my earlier post, it is very true that Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful, for their understanding and instruction. Byzantine Liturgy is about worship of God.

Again, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hit it perfectly when he stated:

What impressed the onlookers was that the Liturgy was not designed to teach ‘book knowledge’ but was, rather, all about worshipping God. Yes, there is an element of ‘book knowledge’ type of catechesis in the Liturgy. But the primary and most important catechesis comes from participation in the Divine Light. It is that sensing of the Divine Light descending upon the celebration that is attractive to both worshippers and onlookers. It is participation in this Divine Light that provides a catechesis that is exponentially beyond the elements of ‘book knowledge’ that comes from hearing the texts and readings. The problem with the Pittsburgh reform (and all reform, East and West that is based upon the 1970s post-Vatican II Latin approach to Liturgy) is that it reorients the focus of the Liturgy from worshipping God to educating man (with the ‘book knowledge’ type of education being emphasized at the expense of the type of catechesis that comes with participation in the Divine Light).

Again, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hit it perfectly when he stated:

Another point arises here. It was not my intention to get into a litany of the specific problems of the present Pittsburgh reform, but the opportunity to tie things together can’t be passed up. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states that: “Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach. In this view, the liturgy is an instrument for the construction of a community, a method of "socialization" among Christians.”

Let’s touch on the “weariness” spoken of by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as this “weariness” is already quite evident in the parishes that have followed the ‘Passaic Rubrics’ for the past ten years, which mandates that parts of the Anaphora (and other prayers) be prayed aloud. I daresay that some priests pray these prayers in a way that precludes the descent of the Divine Light, either by rushing through them at a speed so fast to make them unintelligible or by taking them and making the priest’s style of praying them the focus of the gathered Church’s attention (rather than the offering itself) (both are forms of clericalism). Both clergy and people instinctively reject this change in focus with the new rubrics that makes the Anaphora more about man that about God. Many (even most) cannot put it into words but they certainly sense the shift from participation in the Divine Light; which is why they are overwhelmingly rejecting the Revised Liturgy.

More quotes:

If one applies the principle here, the mandate to pray prayers aloud that have fallen silent (especially the prayers of the Anaphora) reduces (greatly) the ability of the Liturgy “to transform us and the world”. It seems to me that the mandatory praying aloud of these prayers (an external action) in the attempt to teach people by their listening to them is a misunderstanding of the “theo-drama” of the liturgy. Making the hearing of the words to be more important than the actio of the priest detracts from participation in the Divine Light.

Now, consider this:

The point here is that the Pittsburgh reform imitates the current Latin custom; a custom that the Latins have admitted that there are problems with; and that the Latins are now considering that perhaps the quiet praying of the Anaphora is best. Why do we need to mandate a Latin custom that the Latins admit to having problems with? It seems that the position I have argued from the beginning is the only logical one. Ditch the mandate to prayer these prayers out loud. Set the soil so that the Spirit might lead. He may lead the Church to this exact custom in His own time (and for the entire Byzantine Church). Or He may lead the Church somewhere else.

This post is a bit longish – there is so much that can be said (and I have just touched on one of the problems as a key to understanding the problem with the 1970s Latin mentality of reform that has been used to create the RDL). For now I will again recommend that readers consider each of the changes mandated in the reform in light of what the Latin Church has done in experimentation; and how they are now seeing that that experimentation has not been successful and has only brought on a new set of problems.

As a closing note I will speak to Father David’s charge of “false obscurantism”. Reorienting the Divine Liturgy so that it is less about participation in the Divine Light and more about educating man is the real opposition to the spread of knowledge. That is exactly what requiring the Anaphora to be prayed aloud does, and what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has spoken to so clearly. The real obscurantism here is this reform. It places the Liturgy firmly in the post-Vatican II 1970s, and that mindset is more about man and educating him (book knowledge) then it is about worshiping God and allowing the education to come from participation in the Divine Light. Both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have seen the problems with 1970s liturgical principles of reform and have moved on.

--

Let me restate what I have written concisely. Liturgy is not like being at school in a classroom. Liturgy is more like being at play in the Father’s house (and the slow to change structure of the Byzantine Liturgy gives this freedom to be at play). The catechesis that we experience at Liturgy (prayer is the highest form of catechesis) does not come from the instructive value of the texts of the Divine Liturgy. It comes from spending time in the house of the Father. A moment in His Divine Presence – a glimpse of that Divine Light – can teach us more then is contained in all the books in the world. This reform destroys this quality of the Byzantine Liturgy by making the Liturgy less about spending time with the Father and more about being instructed in a classroom. That is why it has already failed.

Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, Dacre Press, London, 1960 (excerpted)
2 2 Eph. i. 6.

Cited in "The Diaconate
In The Orthodox Church"

By Fr. Deacon Photios Touloumes

I find it quite sad that our fathers worked so diligently to preserve the Faith, eventually finding sanctuary in the great land of "religious freedom", only to have secular values succeed where the greatest persecution could not.

-Uspenije.