This was such a good and important post in another thread that I would like to start a separate thread.

As I stated in a couple of other posts, there are so many things besides inclusive language being tinkered with, revised, and reduced here.

Is this so: a "promulgation" in this case as an English translation "that prohibits the full celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension according to the official liturgical books published by Rome does not qualify as a promulgation of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy!"?

Also, is it correct that: "the Pittsburgh Reform of 2007 actually prohibits the full celebration of the official Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension!" in English for the Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh?

The official Liturgical Books of the Ruthenian Recension are quite specific, as are the instructions that come with the "Ordo Celebrationis". The official Revised Liturgy books (the Chrysostom and Basil Liturgicons) are missing whole sections of the official Liturgies, and make purposeful changes to both rubrics and texts for what is included. The changes are so radical that I do not think one can consider it to be a promulgation of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. This is probably why the Council of Hierarchs chose to call it the "Revised Divine Liturgy" and not the "Ruthenian Divine Liturgy".

There is some confusion on how the Liturgy must be celebrated if it is celebrated in Slavonic. I have had priests tell me that they were told by their bishop that the full recension could be taken in Slavonic. Other priests have told me that the rubrics of the Revised Divine Liturgy must be followed even when the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic.


In English this is certainly true, as the 2007 Pittsburgh books do not contain the full recension and the official letter of promulgation specifically prohibits other books to be used. In Passaic, Bishop Pataki even went further to prohibit the praying of the litany (what was left of it) before the Lord's Prayer (but that was an oral prohibition and I am not sure he put it in writing).

As far as Slavonic, there are questions (see what I wrote just above). Several friends of mine who are priests and who have made inquiries have all gotten different answers (or no answer).

I suspect that when the appeal process is complete the Holy Father will guarantee the right of the people and clergy to the full Ruthenian recension, no matter what the language of celebration. That will probably take a few more years of work before becoming a reality.

Maybe one of our posters has access to some sort of official correspondence on this issue and can provide it for us?

Just by way of information: the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church also uses the "Ruthenian Recension" as a rule. The abbreviations authorized by the Synod of Hierarchs are facultative, not prescriptive. Thus there is no impediment whatever to the celebration of the complete Divine Liturgy - and in many places this is still the usual practice.

Fr. Serge

I've just read yet again the Foreword and Decree of Promulgation in the 2006/7 Liturgicon. I have been trying to connect the dots between the Slavonic Recension (Rome, 1941 etc.) and the RDL, not realizing until now that perhaps there was no intention that such a connection must exist.

I had asked about the status of the Ruthenian Recension in Present status of the Ruthenian Recension. I presumed that it was still intended to be normative. As the Foreword and Decree of Promulgation indicate, however, this seems not to be intended. The RDL is:

1. from the Greek

2. compared with the Church Slavonic

3. compared with the 1965 English translation

4. rubrics founded on historical study of manuscripts and modern liturgical scholarship

5. authentic distinct Ruthenian practices are respected
[I take it that some must have been found wanting and therefore rejected]

6. pastoral prudence

Based on this (and one could add 7. innovative translations and parsings based on current scholarly opinions), the RDL is not formed as a modification of the Recension but a distinct version of the liturgy, neither Greek nor Slavonic/Ruthenian, but something of a recension in its own unique way (an American Recension?).

Whether the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh (in conjunction with the Council of Hierarchs) has the authority to revise the Divine Liturgy (or leave the Ruthenian Recension) is a very interesting question. Obviously, Metropolitan Basil has promulgated a Revised Divine Liturgy (in English), one that is demonstrably less accurate in rubrics and translation than the 1964 “Red Book”. But we see that Byzantine Catholics in Slovakia attempted something similar in the 1990s and that after appeal the approval from Rome was withdrawn, and (as reported in several places) replaced with an edition that was very faithful to the official Ruthenian recension. So it is fair to state that the issue is not yet resolved.

Let’s look at one of the canons:


It is demonstrably clear that the Council of Hierarchs failed to keep this canon.

1. The hierarchs did not “see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite”. [In fact, they made great changes and prohibited the "accurate observance".]

2. The hierarchs admitted changes are not accepted as “organic progress”, as no other Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Church is also making such changes. [And we can note that the fact that they had to mandate most of the changes to get anyone to accept them is demonstrative that even in the Ruthenian Church they were not naturally developing.]

3. The hierarchs did not keep in mind the “mutually goodwill and the unity of Christians”. In fact, they rejected the books they hold common both with other Churches of the Ruthenian Recension (Catholic and Orthodox) and the larger Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

It seems pretty clear that the Council of Hierarchs has not kept this cannon.

I suspect that the issue will not be resolved until the appeals come before the Holy Father and he issues a ruling.

John-

Perhaps I'm naive, but given the history of Slovak translation of the 1990's, our hierarchs (and the consultor(s) at the Oriental Congregation who reviewed Pittburgh's new translation) would certainly be on guard not to make the same mistakes.

Please note simply that the Administrator’s remarks are very tendentious. This is necessary for him in order to defend the right of a priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the 1941 Oriental Congregation Recension and the 1964 translation of the same. Since the Council of Hierarchs has promulgated a pastoral version of the same, he has to show that this promulgation was illegal. Thus, he makes statements which he says are obviously true, though they are, in reality, only his own opinions. But keep in mind his ultimate goal - to defend the right of a priest to celebrate the 1964 translation despite the promulgation of the Council of Hierarchs - though, of course, this applies only to parishes in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh.

Therefore,
1) an analogy is made with the Slovak translations of the 1990's. The situation is different, since the present process for review of liturgical texts was not yet in place. Rome did not approve the Slovak texts and then withdraw their approval, but on appeal, the Slovak texts were judged to be not in conformity with tradition. In the case of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, the Canon Law of 1993 was followed. Rome did review the Pittsburgh texts, found them to be in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition and with their own principles as enunciated in Canon 40, § 1, and permitted the promulgation (Letter to the Council of Hierarchs, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001), which was done in 2006. Therefore, for the Apostolic See of Rome to nullify the promulgation of 2006, it will have to rescind its own judgment, quite a different thing than in the Slovak case. I conclude from this:
a)John’s opinion that the promulgation violates Canon 40, § 1 is simply his opinion. The authorities think elsewise.
b) John’s statement that the bishops needed “to mandate most of the changes to get anyone (emphasis mine) to accept them is demonstrative that ... they were not naturally developing” is simply untrue. Certainly the vast majority of our priests/deacons have omitted certain litanies for over three generations, likewise the shortening of the antiphons - at least the 2007 translation restored more of the third antiphon, and there are the main shortenings from the 1964 translation. Note also that the elimination of certain litanies is widespread in the Orthodox Church, the main difference being that it is more difficult for them to edit their liturgical texts. Likewise, the recitation of presbyteral prayers audibly has been widespread since the 1970's. In response to John’s observations elsewhere, this is serious and serious in the Orthodox Church likewise - yes, maybe it is not mandated, but does it have to be “mandated” for it to be “serious” - the Ecumenical Patriarchate recommends it, the Greek Church recommends it (Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, Encyclical 2784). It think this is serious. I have attended many Orthodox Churches where the presbyteral prayers were read aloud. At St. Vladimir’s, the Liturgy from the time of the epistle was celebrated almost exactly as in our 2007 translation. There has been serious discussion of this question since the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, long before the Western Church considered it.(cf. Taft’s footnotes 1 and 2 in his article “Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Secretly or Aloud?, in “Worship Traditions in Armenia.” He even cites my article on this in the Eastern Churches Journal 8/2 (2002), “The Public Recitation of the Presbyteral Prayers.”) However, John’s thesis is that priests should have the right to celebrate the 1964 translation and John’s goal in all of this must be kept clearly in mind at all times.
c) John likewise seems to think - I say “seems” here because certainly he can call me on this and may modify my statement - that any deviation from the 1941 translation is contrary to tradition, and violates the policies of the Oriental Congregation (which, by the way, is the authority for the 1941 translation and hence, I would think, can modify it), even if the same dicastery has reviewed the 2007 translation and found it in conforrmity with its policies. This certainly boggles my mind, though it is understandable as a means to defend the right of a priest to celebrate using the 1964 translation
d) this may likewise explain why a principle is then enunciated, that a decision (i.e. the review of Rome issued in 2001) has no force unless it is public. This, of course, is simply a personal opinion, and, unfortunately, does not help the argument, since the Oriental Congregation approval of the 1964 translation is also not public.
e) as mentioned above, the big difficulty in an appeal is that it will require the Oriental Congregation to admit it was wrong in 2001, or, at least, partially wrong. John has, I think, made mention of Liturgiam Authenticam, promulgated shortly afterward. Perhaps that promulgation can be reviewed also.
f) the ultimate goal of making the liturgical world safe for the 1964 translation also explains why an almost literalist position, that only the full 1941 text, with no jot or title removed, must be the norm. That is the only way to combat the authority on this question. In the other thread, therefore, the pastoral promulgations of Bishop Mihalik in 1970 and Bishop Pataki in 1986 are also rejected, though others have praised the Mihalik promulgation as “facultative” and not “mandatory.” This is John’s “opinion,” my “opinion” is that the 1941 recension was the norm, and that it has been promulgated in a pastoral fashion, taking into consideration an “historical study of manuscripts and modern liturgical scholarship.”

My conclusion is that if you don’t like what the Council of Hierarchs promulgated in 2007, just say it and don’t try to nullify it on technicalities and private opinions. The bishops followed the process. Some have objected, ironically more because the translation is “too Eastern” than because it is “too Western!”

In regard to the Liturgy being “for God” and not “for us.,” from the other thread (A Letter to Rome in the Rough). Maybe this should be broken off there and here and a new thread started, but I would like to make one comment. Part of the problem is what we mean by “for God.” Certainly, we cannot do anything that adds to God’s glory, nor can we tell him what wondrous things he has done for us. We pray this to remind ourselves of the transcendence of God. This is what I, and I think Taft, means by “for us.” We enter the Liturgy and we leave “deified” and “transformed,” God does not change. Therefore, the Liturgy is for us. However, in another sense, in which God does not remain as the center of the Liturgy, but, instead, our own “being” becomes the center, then the statement that the Liturgy is “for God,” or “towards God,” or “points us to God,” and away from our own self-centeredness, is correct. I do not want to be critical of our Roman brothers in faith, but my experience is that often Western liturgies today engage in a kind of “consumer narcissism” in which the human reality becomes the center. Could this be a by-product of the priest facing the people? Not intended, certainly, and not necessary, but it may happen. I think the East has avoided this temptation, but that we are making a misjudgment if we think that this attitude is not very popular. Perhaps we are reacting against this. This is why so many who have come from the West react against any liturgical change, because they think it is leading us on the same road as the West. I hope, however, we keep our sense of balance - liturgy facing the people - no; the audible recitation of the anaphora - yes.

5. authentic distinct Ruthenian practices are respected
[I take it that some must have been found wanting and therefore rejected]

I guess the tradition of singing para-liturgical Eucharistic hymns contradicts respect for Ruthenian tradition, being replaced instead by Helenic tradition.

X.B.! B.B.!

Ung

Father David,

Christos Voskrese!

A very quick yes or no question.

Is the full 1964 translation and rubrics contained within allowed to be celebrated anywhere in the Byzantine Catholic Church of America today?

I would think not, yet every time I try to figure out the intent of the 2007 promulgation letter it turns out to be not what is intuitive in the letter.

Please clarify this point.

Thanks in advance.


Monomakh

It might be more conducive to intelligent and reasonably peaceful discussion to drop the attacks ad hominem.

Fr. Serge

Sarcasim works so well!

Actually, now that I have tried it myself, I realize it really does not.

No sarcasim, just pointing out an inconsistency in the promugation letter of the RDL.

Ung

Regardless of specific questions or opinions surrounding the text or music of the RDL, Fr. David is quite correct that the American Byzantine Catholic Metropolia sui iuris can indeed promulgate its own order of Divine Liturgy and submit it to Rome for approval, which has indeed been done. And this having been done, in both Latin and Eastern canon law a bishop is a "competent authority" to promulgate liturgical norms.

What has to be considered by every soul is a prayerfully and carefully discerned response to this reality considering all aspects - historical, spiritual, liturgical, and then considering all options for response before initiating that response. For some that may mean "sticking it out" with the current reality. For some it may mean another Greek Catholic Church sui iuris. And for some it may mean Orthodoxy outside of full Eucharistic communion with Rome.

This is the "source and summit" of our Christian lives and must be taken very seriously by all.

Perhaps you should read the promulgation letter again before telling me that I am attacking people. It is a poorly written letter that states things in the intuitive sense that have turned out not to be so. I'm asking a simple question and it is directed to Father David because he is the only person from the liturgical commission who has come on this forum. My letters to Pittsburgh and Parma have not been answered so he is the only one who has answered anything and thus the reason that I am asking him. If anyone else who was on the liturgical commission wishes to respond to my question feel free. If any of the hierarchs of the BCA want to respond to my question, feel free. I don't see the point in asking them on this board when I have never seen any of them here.

I guess I'm also completely unaware that you are the moderator and judge of what is deemed 'intelligent and reasonably peaceful discussion' on this forum?

Monomakh

"...in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition and with their own principles as enunciated in Canon 40, § 1,..."

I believe this a very important point and it is what is being examined, giving rise to a number of questions. How faithful is the "conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition" in relation to Canon 40, § 1:

and



But what exactly was that judgment in its particulars? A rhetorical question: Why not simply publish the approval letter etc. from Rome?




Based on what I wrote in the previous post link, his opinion or not, the contention seems at least to warrant questioning and clarification. The Ruthenian Recension is in Slavonic, the translation was from the Greek. What is the significance of the Rome 1950 Greek version of the liturgy that makes it the primary one for the translation? How does it come to figure in such a primary way in the transmittal of the Ruthenian Recension? What were the elements of the Recension that were deemed authentic and which ones were not?

What am I missing in what I concluded above:


since that conclusion is at odds with the RDL being "in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition," or at the least indicating a dilution of the integral composition of the Rite -- text and rubrics -- of the Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension?

Christ is Risen!

I fear you have misunderstood me - I have not accused you anything, and the reference to the use of ad hominem argument was aimed at another poster.

As to judging what is intelligent and reasonable discourse, that, I suppose, is open to all of us.

But just for fun, here's a possibly useful tip: when someone is utterly infuriated and lets loose with a string of invectives, heavily larded with obscenities, an absolutely devastating reply might be "let us define your terms!".

Meanwhile, like most of the rest of us, I would like to read the letter of approval from Rome but have never been vouchsafed a copy of it. We live in hope.

Fr. Serge

It's all well and good that procedure was followed in the case of the Pittsburgh revisions, but it still begs the question, who is "Rome" that reviewed the RDL and what are his/their credentials to judge whether the Pittsburgh liturgy was in conformity with the "Ruthenian tradition" and what are the criteria that he/they used to judge that? And what could his/their agenda have been? And how can be that it conforms to Ruthenian tradition when the Greek version of the liturgy was used as the standard and only then compared to the Slavonic? Saying Rome rubber stamped something is a cop out in my mind. Just as saying the bishops promulgated the Liturgy. The bishops commissioned and relied on the Committee to come up with the new liturgy. Yes they promulgated it, but they did not write it.

Father Serge,

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Your post does show a reply to me, thus the misunderstanding.

Monomakh

I thank Father David for his post.


Father David completely misses the points I have been making. I have been assured that the Slovak reform of the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy promulgated in the 1990s was done so according to the proper protocol, and was not illegal. I am quite sure that the 2007 Revised Divine Liturgy also followed the appropriate protocol. Yet upon appeal the Slovak Revision was rescinded and replaced with a version that really was a translation of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and was complete). I believe that upon appeal Rome will uphold the right of the clergy and the faithful to celebrate this same official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, in its completeness and with an accurate translation. The Oriental Congregation dropped the ball when it approved the 1990s Slovak Revision. I believe that the Oriental Congregation also dropped the ball when it approved the 2001/2007 Pittsburgh Revision. Given what happened with the Slovak Revision, this is a very reasonable position to hold.

As to my ultimate goal, it is not to defend the right of the priest to celebrate the 1964 translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or the 1976 Basil). It never has been and I have stated this on numerous occasions. My goal is that the clergy and people have the right to celebrate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, with both the Church Slavonic and English editions being whole and complete (and, further, the English translation being accurate and in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam and the other directives). My point in quoting Canon 40 is to remind everyone of the responsibilities of the bishops. I believe that their actions were well intentioned but wrong, and continue to appeal to both them and to Rome to correct the situation.

Obviously there are some flaws in the 1964 and 1976 translations. We have also discussed them numerous times. Overall, however, those liturgicons are complete and reasonably accurate in rubrics and translations, especially when compared to the 2007 Revised Divine Liturgies. From the beginning I have advocated that these editions be reprinted with corrections, using the principle that one corrects what is incorrect, and that what is memorized ought not to be changed unless it is actually incorrect (i.e., we retain the traditional text of the Lord’s Prayer even though the translation could be made more accurate).

Father David speaks correctly that there are abbreviations in many Byzantine Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. I suggest that there is a huge difference in allowing short cuts and prohibiting the full and complete Divine Liturgy. It should always be noted that there is evidence that the shortening of the Divine Liturgy in some Orthodox Churches is being reversed as local Churches work towards liturgical renewal. We see the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church declare anew as normative all of the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension, setting them as a future goal even as abbreviations are allowed. We see the new edition (though unofficial) of a Greek Orthodox Basil Liturgicon (Narthex Press) contains the missing litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn. No mandates, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is definitely working towards a fuller celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Father David discusses mandates, in regarding the praying of the Anaphora. He seems to think that the idea that a few Orthodox are thinking about and a handful experimenting is enough to justify his call for a mandate. I will strongly disagree. If a few Orthodox are experimenting, then experimentation of the same type could be allowed. Again, the evidence he offers supports my position of liberty, and not his position of mandate. Why is Father David so opposed to giving liberty so that the Spirit might work across the entire Church?

I am not sure how to understand Father David’s comments on “the big difficulty in an appeal is that it will require the Oriental Congregation to admit it was wrong in 2001, or, at least, partially wrong.” I hope that Father David would agree that anyone who makes a mistake should strive to correct it! They did so with the Slovak Revision. There is a strong possibility that they will do so here. As to Liturgiam Authenticam, I have recommended in my correspondence with the Oriental Congregation that LA be reviewed and amended to more specifically address the excellent requirements it contains to the Eastern Catholic Churches, and seek the input of the local Orthodox Churches in the English speaking world since we should be working towards a common translation.

There are several additional points I could make about Father David’s post, but much of the remaining part of his post attempts to refute an argument I have never advanced (that I am demanding the 1964 Chrysostom (and, by extension, the 1976 Basil)).

--

Father David continues to fail to address the questions regarding his fundamental philosophy of liturgy (in general, and more specifically regarding rubrics and translation). He states that “we have to act on our own needs today” but will not discuss these specific needs and why they are so different from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or any of the other Greek Catholic or Orthodox Churches that are down the street or in the next neighborhood. He also will not discuss why the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy or the various other official recensions of Byzantine Liturgy used in most Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches worldwide could not possibly meet these needs.

The Revised Divine Liturgy failed at its incubation. It is based upon a flawed philosophy of liturgy, a philosophy that seeks not to translate completely and accurately both rubrics and liturgical texts (respecting what has been memorized) but one of unnecessary and unjustifiable revision and updating. Good men who love the Lord and who are surely well meaning have made a foundational error of judgment in their philosophy of liturgy.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church in America needs a complete, accurate, careful, exacting, faithful, and elegant translation of all the official Ruthenian Recension (Slavonic) liturgical books promulgated by Rome. Such a translation must not interpolate, abbreviate, reorder, reorganize, correct, or change anything.

Why is Father David so implacably opposed to allowing the full and official Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy to be celebrated in Ruthenian parishes, in English?

Father David will never address this point!

I've corresponded with two Greek Orthodox chanters -- one in Athens and one in Canada -- and they've both told me that the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is a real liturgical restorer, and has ordered the restoration of the litanies that have been dropped from parish use in the past several decades, including the prayers for the Catechumens. The services at St. George's at the Phanar are also said to be fuller and longer nowadays, than in the reigns of the past two Patriarchs.

My other contacts -- one Romanian and some Russian Orthodox -- have assured me that there is also a steady movement in the "old countries" to the complete celebration of the Divine Liturgy and of the various daily services. The Patriarchal Cathedral in Bucharest even broadcasts Divine Liturgy and Vespers daily. The Divine Liturgy is preceded daily by Midnight Office, Matins then Hours, although these take so long that they are not broadcast.

Just adding my one cents' worth.

I did not point out in my previious post , although I quoted the texts, that Canon 40 appears to be based on and even similarly worded to the Decree on the Eastern Churches, ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, of VCII. The point of note, however, is that while the stated obligation is enjoined principally on the bishop as an obligation of the Code, the Decree of the Council itself places the obligation on "all members"

link [1]


The Canon, interestingly, is found in "TITLE 2 Churches Sui Iuris and Rites" not in the section specific to Hierarchs. Canon 40 in full states:

link [2]

These words seem prophetic of the current concerns.




Consequently, such an appeal and questioning is not only proper but, according to one's conscience and understanding, enjoined on all: bishops, presbyters, deacons, clerics, "monastics", laity. Certainly, legitimate questions and requests for pertinent information obligate a direct and definitive response from the responsible authorities.



--------------------------------------------


[1] link


[2] link

What is a "pastoral version?" If it is pastoral, it must not be binding. And if it is merely a pastoral version, clergy should feel free to adapt the necessary portions of the actual standard promulgated by Rome if they deem it necessary as pastors of local flocks.

The local law under which the RDL was formed actually called for a standard text. That text is the Ruthenian Recension. It only needed to be translated into English.



The text was to be adapted to modern times respecting legitmate [a very meaningful word] organic [aniother vital word] development of the Liturgy.

The following comments of Cardinal Ratzinger are again apropo to a consideration of a pastoral changes in the liturgy:

I simply think it is a matter of common sense that the Bishops cannot lawfully promulagate a Liturgy which contains within it a Symbol of Faith which does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council. A particular law which contradicts a more universal law can have no force or effect, much the same way that a civil law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. It is really quite simple.

What on earth?

lm comments that:


I will take it for granted that "promulagate" is simply a mis-spelling for "promulgate". I will also take it for granted that lm is unaware of the Double Council, and that he thinks for some bizarre reason that the Filioque "does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council". It is true that a civil which law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. But it is not true that it is impossible for the legislator to promulgate an exception to a more universal law. There are numerous adjudicated cases in point.

Fr. Serge

Father,

Many thanks for correcting my typo and yes, please inform me of the Double Council. Otherwise I trust I made myself too obscure!

As to the Creed in the RDL, my point was simply that it has been changed because it is missing a word--"men"--and this change has been made without the approval of an Ecumenical Council. Four Bishops in the United States have no authority to change the Creed. Their "particular law" promulgating the RDL within which is a flawed Creed contradicts the more universal promulgation of an Ecumenical Council. The new Creed within the new Liturgy is also contrary to the manifest intention of the ordinary magisterium regarding the proper translation of the word anthropos into English.

While the Bishops perhaps did not intend to drop any words from the Creed, by promulgating the RDL, that is what they have done. Hence, their "promulgation" of the RDL is arguably without force of law. It seems to me, therefore, any priest within the Ruthenian Rite does not violate any true particular law which attempts to make the RDL "the sole liturgical text" in the United States for the Ruthenians. I believe Rome would not allow any penalty to stand [at least not in the next life considering the time it takes for appeals to Rome] against any priest who would, in good conscience, celebrate the full Liturgy with the true Symbol of Faith.

As to your speculation regarding my thoughts on the filioque, I am not sure what you are saying, but I find no fault with it nor with the desire to remove it from the Creed for the sake of union.

In Christ,

lm

Perhaps we are to some extent, as Socrates put it in the Apology, "fighting shadows" without two basic pieces of information. One is a copy of the Letter to the Council of Hierarchs, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001 . Unless it is openly demonstrated what was allowed to be promulgated, all of this is to a great degree speculation.

Secondly, a direct question should be made to the Eastern Congregation if a priest of the American BCC Metroplia sui iuris is allowed or forbidden from using other "pastoral" texts of the Divine Liturgy, specifically that text allowed by Protocol N. 380/62 from December 10, 1964.

I think you are correct. What Benedict set forth in Summorum Pontificorum also seems apropos: