Father David,

Glad to see you on the Forum right now (11:52, DST).

Many readers would be most grateful if you would find the time to answer some questions. They are not personal attacks but requests for more information / clarifications on the Divine Liturgy in the BCC. Let me draw your attention to three threads:
� Revised or Restored?
� History of the RDL
� Implications of Summorum Pontificum for the RDL

The last thread includes a question in reply to your question posted 9 July 2007, 10:00 DST. The other threads contain questions which were posted days/weeks earlier. Please do us the courtesy of replying, even if it's to say that you don't have the information or can't explain. Otherwise people might think that you find these questions awkward and hope that if they are ignored they may be forgotten.

_____
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Oops!

I just noticed that I had too many characters in the subject line of this post and it was truncated. It should read (missing letters included and highlighted):



_____
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.

I'm sorry you didn't get an answer. I tried the same thing last week. A direct question, asking in all humility and respect. The silence was deafening. And certainly not respectful to us. At least the courtesy of a reply would have been nice.

I't's sad to see those in power be so discourteous as to feel they don't even need to answer questions.

Tim

Asking questions is a form of disobedience. Anyone who asks questions is the enemy. Look for yourself at how the bishops have treated our priests and cantors.

In the minds of Certain People, the asking of a question proves that the questioner is unqualified to grasp the answer.

Fr. Serge

Reverend Father Archimandrite, Gentlemen:

Please let's keep this civil and without sarcasm.

I cannot be accused of disobedience as I am not a member of the BCC, but of another Church of the 'Ruthenian Recension'. As I am a 'liturgical Ruthenian' changes to the Recension are of great interest to me. I only wish to learn.

I'd like to keep this thread on topic and eagerly await some sort of reply from Fr David Petras. As the academic year should be over by now one hopes that Fr David now has time for some lengthier correspondence.

_____
Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

I'm sorry if what I wrote earlier was construed as being uncivil or sarcastic. It truly was not meant that way. I just feel saddened when a question asked in all seriousness is ignored. I was taught that was bad manners, if nothing else. My baba would not let me get away with it, that's for sure.

Tim

It may be in how the question is framed. From how it is framed, the asked can perceive some into the logical flexibility of the questioner and, perhaps, into the slant which the opponent may have. Accordingly, if a question or a series of questions is slanted against the asked a priori, it would be unwise to answer such a question. As a response within the terms of the question would be unfruitful.

For some there are matters on which opinions and arguments cease to matter. Though, I may add that I am not suggesting that this is the case here. I know nothing of the question or the controversy at hand, if there is one.

My presence on the Forum simply seems to stir up a certain amount of uncharity. I think that some people feel hurt by liturgical change and express themselves rather strongly. I wish opposition to the new translation would refrain from being �ad hominem,� hence I post with great caution.

I do have a concern for how people perceive the Liturgy, I do have concern for the worship of people, and I support the reforms, even if some find it painful, because I believe that they can lead to and facilitate the true restoration of our worship which can only take place in our hearts.

I admit to using the term �Restored Divine Liturgy� to goad the issue somewhat. I do not think it improper however, for it is a restoration because:
1) it will bring most parishes to a fuller liturgical celebration;
2) it restores the presbyter�s office of remembering the saving actions of our Lord Jesus Christ;
3) it restores a more authentic chant.

I could add other things, breaking the order down into parts, as, for example:
- the restoration of standing during the Anaphora and Communion (elimination of Latinizations)
- the restoration of the zeon
and others, but I don�t think this necessary.

The Forum people complain because the RDL is not the full 1941 text, but, to be honest, I get many more complaints from people and especially from priests that it restores so much to the Liturgy.

As far as the history of the reform, I think I have answered that in other places, and I�m weary of recounting it.

I asked the question about the 1965 text for a simple reason. Some have complained here that the 2007 translation is not official because the bishops did not release the text of Rome�s approval. They say that the 1965 text continues to be the norm, but we likewise do not have the text of Rome�s approval of that Liturgy, as far as I know. Maybe someone can produce it. I can�t, I was not a member of the Liturgy Commission at that time, and, in fact was only a second year theologian in the seminary.

Father David,

Thank you for responding! I share your disdain for the ad hominem attacks and exaggerated dramas. I appreciate your straight answer.

I believe that the increase in "easternizations" is a difficult challenge for many if not most of the parishes in the Byzantine Church, and I understand the pastoral need to care for them.

I am curious if there is any provision in place, or if there could be, to care for that small minority who were already past that mark. May those parishes which wish to do more contact their bishops for such an allowance? Is there any process in place to encourage growth, or at least pastoral care for those who are in that top 10% who had to decrease what they were doing with the promulgation?

Do you have any pastoral wisdom or encouragement that you would like to reach them?

My parish was one that was reduced by the reformation. I am confused regarding your use of the term "ad hominem". This forum is administered with a very short leash. If a poster exhibits a lack of charity, the post is removed and/or the thread is locked down. Opposition to this reform is usually well articulated and specific. Most of the opposition here is directly in line with the concerns brought forth by Fr Serge as set forth in his superb book. Those posters who may at times approach the boundary of uncharity are frustrated individuals whose voices are not heard and whose letters are ignored. I have sympathy for them.

Yes. True restoration of our worship takes place in our hearts. Sweeping liturgical reform which is forced upon the people is not conducive to this metanoia. Mandated reform is not organic.

When something is forced upon an individual, the natural result is usually opposition. It has been this way throughout history.

R

One would think from reading some of the posts on this forum, that:
Fr. David wrote the RDL himself, browbeat the terrified members of the commission into agreeing with him, intimidated the bishops into going along, and likely walked across the sea to force Rome into submission. I think the good Father has become a scapegoat and is being accused of things he never had the authority, means or intent to do. A little unfair, wouldn't you think? No wonder he doesn't want to post here.

Fr David Petras had a major role. And it has been his choice to come to this forum and defend the revision.

_____________________________
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind

Yes, he did have a role, but no more so than the other members of the commission. What I see are disgruntled individuals who have seized on this to vent evey negative feeling they ever had. There certainly are routes to use to appeal the RDL to Rome for those who choose to do so. But what if Rome upholds the RDL? Do we become like Baptists of the east and leave every time we don't get our way about something? It seems to me that lawful authority has to be either obeyed or disobeyed at some point.

Good point, ByzanTN.

I do not like some of the changes at all, and I am depressed that we will be stuck with them. Some of the changes are good.

But I am not going to leave the Church over the ones I do not like. I respect the conscience of those who feel they need to do so.

But I can't; for me to do so would indeed make me part of the American sectarian culture.