I have been reading the posts for some time. I am not an expert in Liturgy. However I am a Sacred Storyteller and also teach a class on commumications for Evangelization. I would like to share my personal thoughts on the changes. I usually attend a Byzantine Liturgy once a month and lately when I attend my thoughts turn to what do the changes mean to me.
This past week I was thinking about a story of our Rusin people. A farmer was in the fields whan a soldier came by and asked his nationality. Saying that he was Rusin he was arrested, beaten and reminded of his correct nationality. A few years later he was again visited by soldiers and asked his nationality, remembering the previous lesson he replied as he was told, however he was again arrested and advised of his nationality. Finally after many years soldiers again appeared and asked his nationality at which point remembering the previous lessons he replied "you tell me who I am".

I was born in 1951 and remember attending the Liturgy when there was no english in use and my school book bag said we were Greek Catholics. Then in the 60's were were told our churches were wrong and extensive renovation were done. We were told we were not Greek Catholics but Byzantine. The liturgy was switched to English. However there was a lack of books in English or Slavonic except for the Liturgy. In Parochial school there was no mention of anything Byzantine. I remember I had a deep spirituality at that time. I had statues(never knew there were icons) in my room and would read Latin rite service books which were in English. In the 70's I attended the seminary and was introduced to the depth of the Byzantine rite. I was told that this is what it means to be Byzantine. Fortunately I also discovered that the orthodox had already translated most of the service books into English. I tried to convince others of what it meant to be Byzantine and what services could be taken. Now I am being told that what I though was authentic Byzantine wasn't.
I find it very difficult attending the Liturgy not knowing what to do next, should I stand, sit, kneel. Do I bless myself or not? Do I bow? What words am I to use? What songs to sing? I have two daughters and when they ask me what to do in Church I have to answer I don't know. I feel like that man in the story, tell me what I am supposed to be.

I have always been in favor of change, but these changes seem like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I remember many years ago at Uniontown I was telling an elderly gentleman the importance of the Byzantine Rite. He replied "the church was here to care for the immigrants, and when they are gone the church can close".
This post is getting long I have other thoughs that I can share if you are interested.

I, for one, would love to hear more. Please feel free to post more. If you think they are getting too long, break them up into smaller posts. But I think everyone on this forum is entitled to their opinion and the right to express it. The ones that worry me are the ones that are apathetic about anything and everything. Why bother going to church if you just don't care?

Tim

Personally the new Divine Liturgy has left me with a feeling of confusion, hurt and perhaps disillusionment.

Confusion:
1) Why was this translation done at all? Reviewing the old translation of the Divine Liturgy, I will admit that it was not perfect. The revision, however, I believe could have been done with a pencil, not a printing press. There didn't seem to be problems great enough to warrant a complete revision. What made it seem necessary?
2) Why was new music issued, or perhaps more specifically, why was it issued in the manner it was? Ours is an oral tradition, the chants being passed on generation to generation, changing gradually with time and region. Ironically the tradition of our church is to have multiple traditions when it comes to the singing of the DL. The NRL claims in the forward that: "The musical settings are based on the Ruthenian tradition that has been handed down from one generation to another. After extensive research, discussion, and detailed comparison of various written and oral sources, the Intereparchial Music Commission has compiled the plainchant settings of the Byzantine Liturgy found in this book".
By the very fact that there were "various written and oral sources" to begin with, doesn't that mean that we should be able to retain multiple traditions? Also, why could the music not be separate from the words (in the back?) seeing as many different words follow the same, or similar music?
3)Why was all of this done at once? Could not the new rubrics, words and music have been done separately to avoid the confusion and abrupt, complete change? The music is especially hard because, while there is music in the books, many forget that most parishioners (especially the younger ones) can't read music. I'm a little doubtful if some of our cantors can read music, most simply did it by memory.

Hurt:
1) Why were the laity not once asked their opinion on the matter of a new translation? We might not be clergy, but we are all part of the church and, forgive me for I mean no disrespect, we do make a up a much larger percentage. There are many people amongst the laity who could have helped in the construction of a new revised edition, but from what I can see, there talents were ignored.
2) Our church is dying and seems like those in charge simply don't care. My parish was a very strong one that went back and forth between Slavonic and English (with the occasional Greek) with ease. Even some children as young as seven knew the Divine Liturgy (some parts in both languages). I remember specifically a boy who would sit near the front and sing the Divine Liturgy almost as loud as the cantors (quite well, though) with emotion that was stirring to see in a boy so young. He doesn't anymore. My church is not alone in stories like this taking place. Also, there is a lot of discontent with the new DL and those who voice their opinions are labeled as whiners, ignored or talked down to as if they were ignorant children. When they leave the church for either another Eastern Catholic church or for an Orthodox church, they are often treated like traitors.

Disillusionment: (If you are easily offended and support the new Divine Liturgy, I beg you not to read further.)
1) Please forgive my frankness, but I find it ugly, not only the music, but the words as well. I always assumed the reason our Liturgy and Churches were as beautiful as we could make them was in order to give glory to God. The words have all the poetic appeal of the Washington Post and the music seems completely lacking in emotion or melodic interest. The beauty I once found in the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Church is now gone.
2) Many of the translations are inaccurate. I know many people who are very well versed in Old Church Slavonic and other slavic languages who look at the words and ask "Where are they getting this?" In the foreword it states: "In a few instances, textual criticism based on the witness of manuscripts has guided the translation." I'd be very interested to know exactly what these manuscripts are.
3) Again, the apathy (in some cases disrespect) to which those who oppose the new DL is disheartening. I thought that clergy were supposed to guide and help the spirituality of the people. I'm finding this is not the case. I find more acceptance, love and care for my well being in an Orthodox church, where I know I cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ (because, while I now attend an Orthodox church, I have not given up on my first church yet).

These, so far, are my impressions and thoughts on the NDL.
Please forgive me if I offended any of you and forgive me for the length of this entry.

Your post show me the power of the Holy Spirit. This is what I think is important to discuss. It is fun reading all the technical information, however what matters is the impact on the people. The Church is a living entity it is the body of Christ it is not just mind but also body and spirit. As a storyteller for me saying Mother of God bring up images of my mother. What is was like to go to her if I was hurt or had a problem. There was a metaphor behind the words. These metaphors take time to form and are personal for each of us they cannot be translated. We are given new words and they are just that words, it will take time for these words to take on the meaning they deserve. we have to be comfortable using these words.

As a child I spoke po nashamu and even though I can no longer speak it I understand the words, and am amazed sometimes at the translations given. I know it is difficult to translate between languages because the words carry additional meanings. As a storyteller I have to choose words that will give people the greatest freedom to create their own story out of what I tell them. I teach that in communication 7% is words the rest is body language and tone of voice. The messages we convey depend on our culture, age, sex, traditions and many other factors.

Another thing our beliefs are built up on many experiences. If the beliefs we build on are called into question then other beliefs are affected. My personal relationship with God is based on all my childhood experiences.
It would be as if someone said that what your parents told you should not be believed. They did not have enough knowledge or skills and their views were often not consistent with other parents. Here now are the official beliefs you need to have.
Years ago what we believed and what we lived were the same. I feel that today our beliefs are separate from the life we live.

I do not know if there was a better way for the changes but I know that what is critical is to hear the cries of the people. What causes people to dropout is when they feel they are not being heard.
I attended a seminar on Conflict management within the Church and learned that it is important to set clear goals and expectations and decide what to do when there are problems. Apathy is not a solution for an organization that is apathetic spends 80% of it's energy dealing with the pain and resentment and 20% in growth.
Change can be good. We've all heard if it not broke don't fix it but sometimes if it isn't being fixed it is broken.

I know you question the role of the laity in the changes. I also know of many people that were instrumental in the early days with providing music and translations of the various services. I do not know what became of their work, but I do know that if we are to survive it will be up to each of us to work together by listening to each other. Each of us will need time to tell our story of how the change is affecting us. What sometimes makes it more difficult is that in addition to the changes in Church similar changes are happening in our jobs and at home. I just retired from a Corporate environment and they were in the midst of changes. There no longer seemed to be an interest in past events and success was based on whether a check could be put next to an objective not if it was effective.

I remember years ago changes were being made at the church I attend with no regards for the concerns of the people. I was in favor of the changes just not the methods used.

Finally you mention being disillusioned. Your criteria for what is a spiritually uplifting experience is not being met. You are seeking beauty to give glory to God. You remember a time when that beauty existed.

There was a time when the world was a beautiful place, but now we live with noisy cities, lack of communications, music on the radio and cd's that we cannot understand that is loud and blaring, newspapers that are not worth reading, misunderstanding constantly occuring, and no leaders to help us through this mess.

For those of us in the Eastern Rites there is the Church. I cannot understand why our churches have not shown how important they are to this world. I feel we have much to offer people if we could get our act together. Make our churches Byzantine standardize our services make people aware of us.

People in this secular world need a place to go to leave the world behind. Enter our Churches and the world stops there for inside is the Kingdom of God in all it beauty and majesty. It assails all our senses and for an all too short time allows us to "set aside all earthly cares".

Storyteller,
I'm not sure if I understand quite what you are saying. My post was specifically about my personal views on the changes to the Divine Liturgy, not the outside world. I'm a little confused as to whether or not you are for or against the changes. I must admit I'm a little confused as to what you are trying to say at all :-\

I feel I must respond to a few of the points you brought up, however:


I must admit I'm a bit confused how standardizing our services is making them more Byzantine. When one uses the term Byzantine Catholic they can mean Ruthenian, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Melkite etc. To me, being Byzantine means not being standardized. Also, within traditions there is slight variation depending on region, generation etc. Mandating in such an absolute way that there is only one tradition that is right and that the people (without whom the Church would not really mean much) had no say in even choosing that tradition... to me that does not seem very Byzantine, nor does it appear to be in the good interest of the Church.

Also, I was baptized into the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church not 11 years ago, when I was about seven years old. I remember my baptism and I also remember having a choice of whether or not I wanted to join the church. I remember wanting to be baptized so badly so that I could be part of this amazing thing that was unlike anything I'd ever experienced before. Maybe it was just childish, but I remembered other churches (I went to an Episcopalian elementary and middle school) and as a child I thought as I heard them sing some hymn to the Theotokos that finally I had experienced what Church was supposed to be like. Then later, when I was 8 to about 13, I accompanied my father to conferences in which I experienced many different traditions (Coptic, Ukrainian, Russian, Melkite, etc) I looked forward to each new tradition I got to experience.

What makes our tradition so wonderful is that there are so many traditions to choose from. I'm currently looking at colleges and visited a church in Cary, North Carolina (Ss. Cyril and Methodius, I think), which is Ruthenian, but had slightly (some more than slightly) different tones than those used in my home parish. The differences were not unwelcome, rather I found them beautiful and interesting. By eliminating all the traditions besides the ones in the NDL, its as if we are robbing ourselves of a depth of culture and beauty to choose from. To quote My Big Fat Greek Wedding, we are making it "dry, like toast". I'm unsure how "standardizing" our services will make us more Byzantine or make people more aware of us; in fact, I fear it will do the opposite.

Forgive me for not quite understanding what you wanted to convey and thank you for replying

"What makes our tradition so wonderful is that there are so many traditions to choose from. I'm currently looking at colleges and visited a church in Cary, North Carolina (Ss. Cyril and Methodius, I think), which is Ruthenian, but had slightly (some more than slightly) different tones than those used in my home parish. The differences were not unwelcome, rather I found them beautiful and interesting. By eliminating all the traditions besides the ones in the NDL, its as if we are robbing ourselves of a depth of culture and beauty to choose from. "

How right you are. A few weeks ago I went to an absolutely beautiful Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church near my home town. I don't get back to my home town very often, but have seen the church many times but never attended. I am a cradle Byzantine-Ruthenian, having served DL in Church Slavonic for years as well as in English. The church is of the old wooden churches in Europe, Ukraine and Carpatho-Rusyn areas. Inside it is just as beautiful as outside. I need to post some pictures that I took. They are wonderful.

I have never atttended a Ukrainian Greek Catholic service before. The words were slightly different, but the tones were different. In some cases, VERY different. I didn't find it odd. I found it exhilerating. I thought it was wonderful that here is a church that is so close to my own tradition, yet so different at the same time! After Divine Liturgy I spoke with the priest for almost two hours and it just flew by. I was so impressed by everything. So close--yet so different. I was humbled and filled with joy.

Then I think of what seems to be happening to my beloved Ruthenian church and it brings tears to my eyes. The same weekend I attended my home church, which was using the new Liturgy. So few people sang. People I know and grew up with. I spoke with the person who is probably the oldest active parishioner in the church. He is in his early 80's I'm sure. (His sixtieth wedding anniversary was later that week!) and the new liturgy was so unfamiliar to him. He's old enough to remember the Divine Liturgy of the 30's and 40's. Before the big changes. And the revisions that those in charge say are happening, the returning to our roots musically--well, this person can't remember any of those melodies. Maybe it's just one person. The person who was cantor is still alive but not in good health. I would love to hear her reaction to the new Divine Liturgy. Because she too is old enough to remember how things were decades in the past.

We stand to lose so much by having only one tradition musically. Why limit ourselves in this manner? How do we gain? And how much do we lose?

Tim

It's been a dog's age since I've posted here, so I've missed a lot. I attend a Ruthenian parish, and have experienced the "new" liturgy.

Fewer people are singing. But, it's new music and even with the notes printed, most don't know a sharp from a flat. It's the auditory experience that gets people acclimated to new stuff. I'm sure that the Po Nashemu folks went bonkers when the Liturgy went into English. Once again, as for ages of ages, it's the cantors who do the yeoman work. Apart from some verbal changes, the priest's parts aren't that much different in music.

The Holy See (and the Council) were pretty clear that we should follow our Orthodox brethren in conducting liturgical services. But it's also clear that our Orthodox brethren are all over the place in terms of English. Some use "thee/thou" and others use "you". Perhaps the changes in the Ruthenian recension will cause ferment among the Constantinopolitans to get together on a standardized English version for us in North America. (OK, don't change the "thee/thou" in the Lord's prayer. It's "common" among all Christians and not an impediment to understanding.)

For other renderings of St. John Chrysostom (and our Father among the Saints, St. Basil the Long-Winded), the key element is that it conform to current Standard American English - the stuff that is used as "broadcast English" so that the "laos" (the 'people') get the message that the author intended. The problem lies in the fact that language evolves and that the 'laos' (laos ergeizei = Greek: 'the people act' = liturgy) becomes different with each generation. The 'fear' of God, a translation of "timor Dei", which meant 'drop to your knees with jaw-dropping awe', now indicates armpit sweating trembling. Not even close to the original.

If there is a problem understanding this phenomenon, just talk to teenagers. (The Lord is: 'great' 1950s, 'groovy' 1960s, 'the man' 1970s, 'hot' 1980s, 'the bomb' 1990s, and "cool/kewl" early 2000s.) While there shouldn't be a need to revise the liturgical language every decade, there should at least be an acknowledgement that language changes. And, to be blunt, developments in language prior to the electronic age happened very slowly but now it's almost a day to day occurrence. This is just a fact of linguistic reality. But using Standard American English (SAE) should be the norm for 'transfer' of theological ideas to contemporary language with the realization that we'll need to review our liturgical language in about 20 years.

There are those who are in favor of "churchy' language. I'll admit that I like familiar cadences - they make me comfortable. Sort of like the Star Spangled Banner on the Fourth of July. But I also realize that the Faith isn't the equivalent of 'civil religion' envisioned by Mr. Jefferson and the early founders of our nation. True Christianity is life-changing, not life-cementing. It's the combination of scripture reading, meditation, confessor consulting and prayer. And the results of this are not found in a formulary. It's the Holy Ghost, er... ooops: Holy Spirit.

When push comes to shove, the ultimate reality is the congregation and its commitment to the Gospel and to loving and serving each other. Our liturgy and sacraments as entities, not as formulae, have stood with the people as the mainstay of the Faith. If a word here or there changes, no big "whoop". (Do people still use that term?) The music (God bless the Ruthenian and Ukrainian people for their dedication to the PEOPLE's musical participation!) serves to reinforce the active participation in the liturgical "REAL-ization" of the doctrinal elements of the rituals. It's the reinforcement of the "love God with YOUR whole heart...." and the love your neighbor as you'd love yourself message.

There are those who are dedicated to the 'cant' (i.e., the recitation/chanting of incomprehensible language - like the "hare krishna" stuff or the Latin/OCS for the non-bilingual folks) that the message is just not present. St. Paul was pretty clear on this: "pray with the heart and the understanding". One can hamana-hamana-hamana till the cows come home, but it's not prayer. One has to lift one's heart and soul to God and that means the native language that cries out to God for grace and mercy. And if that means a teenager's heart cries out to God and says: "Dude! My butt is in deep crap. Man, help me!!", then that's the teen's prayer and who has the right to say it's not legit? It might not be right for the teen's Grammie, but it's the teen's heartfelt prayer. And we need to be sure that in liturgy we incorporate not only Grammie's prayer, but also the teen's heartfelt plea. Not easy, but do-able.

To say that we need to use only the "received tradition" and someone's interpretation of the words of the liturgical writer is just nonsense. We need to make prayer for the people -- all of them.

Priests who have children are more than aware of this. The dads have to deal with this every day and every evening over dinner. (And so do the Moms!!) But the priest, as the 'pro-estos' of the community, has the responsibility before God to preach the Gospel to the people in his care. And he needs the freedom to make sure that the Gospel is preached. This is done primarily in the sermon/homily/drash, but it also extends to the liturgical ceremoniale, including the Scriptural readings. (I remember in seminary giggling over the translation of the woman who scoured her home for the missing dime. We thought 'this woman must be nuts'. It certainly took away from the meaning of the scripture. Gold coin? Maybe. Dime, not a chance.)

My whole point is this: the Liturgy preaches the Gospel. The liturgical-language preaching must be done in language that the people both use and understand. If the translators know all the Greek, Latin, Hebrew and OCS in the world, that's great, but if they don't know that "wicked" means 'jaw-dropping' in SAE, and that WTF? means "are you nuts?", then perhaps other linguistically sensitive folks ought to be involved in the rendering of the liturgical texts.

As for the music, the 'received' melody is the norm. Any changes from this are unacceptable. The 'Our Father', with the 'thine' becoming 'your' never worked and it's dead. "Happy Birthday" is what it is - changes have never succeeded. Doing strange things to Great Week and the 'Triduum' (Good Friday-Holy Saturday-Easter Sunday) won't work either because they intersect with family traditions and what "Grammie" did. (And the rest of Orthodoxy does too.) The Saints may have authority, but the fact is Grammie and the family trump anything else. Questions? Talk with the Babas/Nonies/Yia-yia's. They'll set you straight. The true faith is transmitted in the family and the community of baptized individuals that makes up the Church.

So when pilgrims come to the East, they should realize that they are not joining a Church, but rather coming into a village of families that constitute the parish, and the Church. And they should hope to become integrated into this 'tribe'. If they're dragging stuff along from their past ecclesiastical existence and insist on maintaining former practices, language, and attire, then they should be prepared to be marginalized. It's the Book of Ruth all over again.

If a Ruthenian comes to a Melkite community for whatever reason, then he/she should be prepared to think: "Yikes! These Antioch Byzantines are crazy!!", but he/she has to enter into the Melkite community if being a member of the community is the goal. Otherwise, move on and keep on looking for a home.

Regarding the 'official' changes in the Ruthenian recension, yeah, some words have been amended, and the music isn't Levculic. And if that is so bothersome, then a Johnstown parish might be the answer. But the reality is also (to quote the Latins!!): 'vox populi, vox Dei', the people's voice is the voice of God. If the changes don't work, the Church will know it. And the people will do what they need to do to attain their salvation through the public prayer of the Church.

The Latin church in the 1880s and 1890s endured Kahenslyism over 'ethnic' parishes. The babas at that time threatened 'alien' priests (=Irish) with hat-pins because they didn't 'belong' and couldn't preach in the required language.

Now, let's talk about 0.9mm Glock pistols for our current babas............

(Just a joke, please don't report me to the FBI or Homeland Security!!)

It's Christ (alone!) Who counts,
Dr. John

I don't want to derail the thread, but I have to say hello and welcome back to my schoolmate, Dr John. So good to see you posting, my brother - I was just thinking of you a couple days ago.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks, Neil. I just got some stuff from BC High and was thinking of all my classmates. Dear Lord, 43 years! How did we get so old - but then again, we're still around making noise!! Thank God for His blessings!!

JB

There was a thread on Town Hall last week called 'What ever happened to'? I honestly thought of responding 'Dr. John'. Now I don't have to wonder any more! Welcome back and good to see your posts again.

In Christ,
Alice

Yes--a BIG welcome back and a GREAT post to boot! You da man Doc!

Thanks Alice and JohnK. Your kind words are much appreciated. Blessings!!

JB