Earlier today, I received a copy of the latest edition of the Divine Liturgy as accepted by the Archbishop and the clergy of the Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Newton. It's not perfect (nothing ever is), but it is admirable, and those who will use it are to be envied. I recommend it to the attention of the clergy and faithful of the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

Fr. Serge

Is it available online?

Seems like the Melkites always make the right decisions regarding authentic liturgical tradition.

Ungcsertezs

At the moment, the text is still largely devoid of formatting, etc. It is still essentially in the form of a "study text". We are working now at making it into a format that is easy for people and clergy to read and pray.

We are also updating our English chants with the new translation. (Not always easy, as a change in syllable structure may mean that the underlying melody no longer supports the new words or meaning. Thus we must turn to the original Greek and Arabic melodies, when modifying the English music.)

The Melkite global web site will be updated soon.

Is this substantially different than the text that was presented for review and input to the clergy? I understood that some minor revisions were made based on the feedback from the sensus fidelium but that the overall text was very similar.

What, the "sensus fidelium" voiced imput? What a novel innovation to liturgical revision!

Ungcsertezs

The changes were mostly minor from the draft circulated for comment. For example: "now and always and for ever and ever" has now become "both now and ever and unto ages of ages". Other changes included some grammatical corrections and improvements in grammatical style.

This version has also capitalised the initial letter of pronouns referring to God.

It is by and large a very close translation of our Arabic and Greek originals.

How wonderful. Eis polla, eti despota!

Chronia polla to our brother Melkites!!!

Father Bless!

Father Serge, when might you offer some critical analysis of our new translation?

Shall probably do so eventually - but I'm in the midst of an article on another topic at the moment. Meanwhile, I'm favorably impressed, on the whole, by the new translation of the Eparchy of Newton.

Fr. Serge

Thanks for the sneak peak review.

Unfortunately, it will probably be published by Sophia Press. It will be full of typos with an initial offering of 150 volumes. Those will sell out in 3 days and the book will then be out of print for the next 4 years. URGH!!!

I look forward to seeing the new Melkite Divine Liturgy translation and compare it to the Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church of America's RDL. I wonder which will be more of an authenic translation?

Ungcsertezs

WOW! byzanTN,

I guess I just know all the right people. I get all the books i need. Even the one's out of print.

Although i will admit, Sophia Press is very limited run and there are usually typo's.

Ung-Certez,

I understand that we will be using:
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...

because in Greek there are no commas. So, sounds like a VERY literal translation in most areas.

Also, isn't the new Ruthenian Divine Liturgy a Revision?

From the article of Father Michael Skrocki, the structure of the Divine Liturgy is kept intact. Either the Synodal One Antiphon can be taken or Three Antiphons. This is up to the celebrant.

"Either the Synodal One Antiphon can be taken or Three Antiphons. This is up to the celebrant."

Our Hierarchs (Ruthenian) should also leave it up to the celebrant, and local parish, to use fuller forms of the antiphons. What is so bad about using fuller psalms?

DRAFT 644 kb pdf file

..."unto ages of ages" and "for us men". I like it already!

Ungcsertezs

It's wonderful! mankind, unto ages of ages, and Master! We should scrap ours, and use theirs. Anybody with me on that??????

I've quickly perused this text.

I find it odd that some of ya'll who have criticized the Ruthenian books are applauding this new Melkite text simply because it uses "ages of ages." Is that all that matters? They (the Melkites) are taking even greater liberties with the Divine Liturgy compared with those taken by the Ruthenians. The Melkites give options for the presbyteral prayers (something new to the Byzantine rite), for the Antiphons (you can use either 1, 3, or the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes with Troparia), and for the Litany of Supplication after the Gospel.

Plus, there are some unique rubrics in Appendix 6 (on page 100 of the text, or page 103 of the PDF).

Dave

Chtec,

I am not the expert here. Perhaps you cold speak to Matta, but I was under the assumption according to the arictle of Father Michael Skrocki from the recent Sophia journal that no new liberties were taken. Rather, there are option available that were already available and used by some in the Old Country. Aside from this there are things which come from the Barberini Codex.

I don't know of any liberites taken. I assume that this is only a new transltion, not a revision.

Of course, Father Serge or Matta can clarify these things.

The rubrics, to which I presume you refer, are a return to the way the ektenés were originally performed in the rite. The deacon in Greek & Antiochian Orthodox (and Melkite) churches has often added mention of those, for whom the liturgy is offered (cf. several hieratika).

As for the antiphons. You'll find that many Antiochian and Greek Orthodox churches had been celebrating the antiphons in a similar way for at least a couple of hundred years (cf. synekdémos of Athens, for example). The Melkite synod of 1969, merely affirmed this as one possible usage, fully representative of our rite over history. The antiphons when finally coming into the Byzantine rite (11th century-ish) took some time to settle down; practice in this area has not been uniform over the period of their existence in the Byzantine liturgy.

And as for "at all times, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages". I personally don't like it, although I believe it has been used for a while in the US. I preferred our earlier translation: "now and always and forever and ever", which is closer to modern English. However, even though "unto ages of ages" is an older form of English, it is very close to the Greek original: "nyn kai aei kai eis tous aiônas tôn aiônôn."

I cannot believe anyone who dislikes the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy likes the Revised Melkite Liturgy:

Precut particles permitted for the Communion of the Faithful

Optional to take only one Antiphon

Alternate Antiphon Prayers

Petitions of Ektene after Gospel may be chanted by lay people!!!

Ektene after Gospel and Litany of Faithful conjoined so that Second Prayer of Faithful is the Prayer of the Ektene

Prayers of Matins may be used as Alternate Second Prayer of the Faithful

First Prayer of the Faithful suppressed

Litany of Catechumens suppressed unless catechumens at Liturgy

Angel of Peace petitions suppressed after Great Entrance

Kiss of Peace restored for the faithful

The Doors! The Doors! suppressed unless catechumens present

Anaphora aloud mandated

Hymn: "Let our mouths be filled" made optional

2 petitions made optional in Litany of Thanksgiving

Alternate Prayers of Thanksgiving

As for translations they do not say Orthodox at the Great Entrance and every appearance of it elsewhere is in quiet recitation so the faithful don't have to hear it.The exception is for the second to last petition of the Ektene and that petition does not have to be used. They do use brothers and sisters in the fifth petition of the Ektene.

Those praising this revision either didn't read it completely or are being very hypocritical in criticizing the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy and praising the Revised Melkite Liturgy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

PS: to my Melkite brothers and sisters, I find nothing wrong with the new Melkite Liturgy with the possible exception of the laity taking the petitions of the Ektene, (still undecided). I just can't believe some would critize the RDL then praise the Melkite revision when they share much in common.

I didn't see any inclusive language in the Melkite translation.

"I didn't see any inclusive language in the Melkite translation"

There is at least one use: brothers and sisters in the fifth petition of the Ektene. The same use is found in the RDL and was criticized.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Perhaps Father Serge or Matta could reply to your post.

Optional to take only one Antiphon
Alternate Antiphon Prayers
Petitions of Ektene after Gospel may be chanted by lay people!!!
Ektene after Gospel and Litany of Faithful conjoined so that Second Prayer of Faithful is the Prayer of the Ektene

I think these were already addressed

Kiss of Peace restored for the faithful

That's supposed to be there.

Anaphora aloud mandated

??? The RDL does this. This is something unique to the Melkites though before this. I like it, others don't. I think it was an Aleppan practice.

The most important part, the Creed, was not altered. Neither was the final blessing.

Laka Ya Rabb,

You must have missed my PS.

PS: to my Melkite brothers and sisters, I find nothing wrong with the new Melkite Liturgy with the possible exception of the laity taking the petitions of the Ektene, (still undecided). I just can't believe some would critize the RDL then praise the Melkite revision when they share much in common.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Etnick,

All it takes is one use and you've succumbed to the modernist feminist agenda according to those critical of the RDL.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance, it seems quite judgemental and narrow to suggest, with the great variation of particular liturgical development between the Ruthenian rescension and the Melkites, that one cannot disagree with the RDL but like aspects of the Melkite liturgy, and furthermore to do so is "hypocritical".

I could illustrate this with numerous examples, but will only take one for the interest of time. I greatly appreciate the respect for pastoral sensitivity by allowing the priest to take all of the Antiphon verses or the Typika as he desires based on the particular parish liturgical circumstances in the proposed Melkite text (which is not final); the "sole text" of the RDL English text as promulgated does not allow the same.

Fr. Deacon Randy,

"It's not perfect (nothing ever is), but it is admirable, and those who will use it are to be envied." Fr. Serge

"It's wonderful! mankind, unto ages of ages, and Master! We should scrap ours, and use theirs. Anybody with me on that??????" Stephanie

Illustrate all you like, the bottom line is the very same people ripping the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy are praising the Revised Melkite Liturgy when the two share many features except for horitzontal inclusive language including most notably:

Litany of Catechumens suppressed unless catechumens at Liturgy

Angel of Peace petitions suppressed after Great Entrance

Anaphora aloud mandated

So again I say those praising this revision either didn't read it completely because they should have the same criticisms of it or they are being very hypocritical in criticizing the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy and praising the Revised Melkite Liturgy. Why? Because they translate the way they like they will tolerate even bigger rubrical changes and options?

As to the point you illustrate, how often has it been said her the option to take less means less will be taken? What is preferable mandate all three Antiphons be taken but reduced to one verse or make it an option to take only one completely? You end up with the same amount of material either being sung either way.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I disagree based on my experiences in Melkite parishes. The clergy I know will be quite pleased to have the ability to take the fuller text they deem appropriate for the parish circumstances.



I would say they are quite dissimilar in more ways.

Regarding your rancor at individual posters, at least there is a forum where such things can be voiced - unlike the Melkite liturgy there was little input asked for or taken in the preparation of the RDL.

You may disagree, but there are those who are not satisfied with the product of the RDL as a liturgy of the Ruthenian Rescension. As such, accusations of hypocrisy, rancor, whatever else you feel the need to vent, do not proffer anything other than anger.

Also we do not know that this will be final. These two liturgical revisions differ far more in approach and content than they are similar, I would maintain.
Fr. Deacon Randolph

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

We will have to disagree. They look vey similar to me.

As for rancor I have none towards Fr. Serge or Stephanie. Why is claiming a position hypocritical rancorous? I just don't think you can criticize the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy and then turn around and praise the Revised Melkite Liturgy when both make many of the same changes.

I have stated my sympathy for for those who don't like the new translation or rubrics and publicly stated I hope they gain their wish to use the 65 book again. What I do reject are claims that our clergy are infected with the modernist agendas of novus ordo-ization or radical feminism.

And for all the ado about invovling the laity in the revision of the Liturgy I find it telling the end products share many features.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

There is a difference between calling a specific crticism "hypocritical" and asserting that the critics "are being hypocritical". By way of amusement, to write that "Jones uttered a feline snarl" does not give Jones four paws and a tail, while "Jones is quite catty" might at least seem to!

To go from the amusing to the erudite, I hope that I grasped both revisions as a Gestalt in each case. Hence my reaction. I prefer not to expand at the moment; when time permits I hope to write a more detailed analysis of the Eparchy of Newton's text. #

Meanwhile, though, I would lay high odds that simply putting the two versions side-by-side would show substantial differences, so that it is not simply a matter of seeing the good Swiss cheese in one, and nothing but the holes in the other!

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance --



Not so fast. The use of the word OPTIONAL makes a HUGE difference to those of us who love the full Ruthenian Recension, better known as the Red Book. It would have made things a little better.



Again, not so fast. Our dear Fr. Tom Loya stated in a post over the Summer that this Liturgy was a last attempt by those raised in the sixties to leave their mark on the Liturgy. Call it what you want, but the inclusive language makes it sound like a flower child Liturgy to me.

Again, just my two cents......

Stephanie

P.S. I am honored to be in the same boat as Fr. Serge; at least I know I'll be praying the full Recension.

Those who wish to be in the same boat with me are always welcome to visit our parish in Dublin. We abbreviate the Divine Liturgy once a year.

Fr. Serge

lol

Fr. Serge,

My intention was to state that I believe the criticism is hypocritical as I do not consider either you or Stephanie hypocrites. My apologies if there was any confusion.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Stephanie

The following are mandated not optional just as in the RDL:

Litany of Catechumens suppressed unless catechumens at Liturgy

Angel of Peace petitions suppressed after Great Entrance

Anaphora aloud

Fr. Deacon Lance

Have there been criticisms of the RDL for not taking this litany if Catechumens are not present?

Yes.

I am not so sure - I remember one friendly exchange with the Admin where I recommended it be used in its fullness when there were catechumens present, and he preferred it used always. I don't think it ever came up as a significant criticism of the RDL since it was rarely used before. In the 1988 UGCC Liturgikon the full litany of the cathecumens is optional but can be taken anytime, but rarely is when no catechumens are present except in select parishes.

Diak remembers correctly.

I recommend that priests pray the Litany for the Catechumens because it is important to pray for the catechumens, be they present or not. I know of a priest who didn't take it for a long time because he didn't have any catechumens. Then he thought he might begin to pray it in hopes of catechumens and started praying it. Lo and behold! At the end of the very first Divine Liturgy he had someone come up to him and tell him that they wished to convert to Byzantine Catholicism. [There are 7 petitions plus the doxology, and only 2 of them are directed to the catechumens. The other 5 and the doxology are prayers of the faithful for the catechumens.]

English language Liturgicons need to be faithful and exacting translations from the original language. This includes both text and rubrics. Allowable deviations from the normative, official Liturgy should be documented in a separate instruction. For the Ruthenian Church the bishops should promulgate all the official Slavonic books as normative, and then seek to produce exacting translations (with the only accommodations being pastoral ones for what has been accepted and memorized by the people). As I have indicated, restoration begins with promulgation of the official books of the Ruthenian recension, plus a directive as to what is the ‘lowest’ allowable form. Then, with example, education and encouragement, one raises the standard gently over a generation or so until the full Liturgy is celebrated everywhere. There was certainly no need for the crisis in the Ruthenian Church that the bishops have created. The faithful deserve more respect then they have been given.

As to the Melkite text being circulated for comment, I make the same recommendations. I have not had the chance to spend any time with it or to compare it with previous editions. I am glad, however, that they are seeking input and are open to critical analysis.

I looked over it briefly.

I see very little new, it reads almost exactly as the DL is prayed in my parish. That's only from the people's point of view however; I admit utter ignorance at what happens behind the iconostasis.

The only differences I saw from my look-through are:

- "our King and our God" is removed from the little entrance hymn. Since "our King and our God" is commonly used in the Arabic, I'd imagine that many parishes may keep this in.

- "one in substance" is removed (finally) formally from the books.

- the optional litanies in appendix 6

- " Ἄξιόν ἐστιν" has a different translation.

- "Receive me today O Son of God as a communicant in your mystical supper" has a different translation. I wonder if that means that we'll get new music, or if we'll keep the current modern-music melody that we use. (I wouldn't mind hearing the new translation chanted along with the Arabic to the reading-type melody that is commonly used in the Middle East).

My only suggestion for the final printed version would be to make the people's parts bolded, and possibly in a larger font.

Father Deacon Lance is evidently determined that those of us who have the temerity to criticize the Pittsburgh Metropolia's revision should not be permitted to like the Eparchy of Newton's restoration. Well, for the sake of Christ, forgive me.

I haven't time now to respond to Father Deacon's entire list, but I shall attempt to respond to one criticism he makes:



At the Great Entrance, the Eparchy of Newton edition gives an accurate translation of the Greek text (cf. The Divine Liturgies ... edited with the Greek text by J.N.W.B. Robertson, London, David Nutt, 1894, reprinted Fairfax, Eastern Christian Publications, 2007, pp. 280-281) and the pre-Nikonian Church-Slavonic text (cf. Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom [Church-Slavonic], published with the blessing of Metropolitan Alympy of Moscow and All Rus', Vereshchagino 2002, p. 72 (recto and verso). Those who do not read Church-Slavonic may find the same thing in the "Divine Liturgy" section of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book, Church of the Nativity, Erie, Pennsylvania.

As for the childish criticism that people will not have to hear the dreaded word Orthodox, it occurs in several places in the Divine Liturgy and one does assume that most adults who attend the Divine Liturgy are literate and can see what is on the page in front of them. One also assumes that this word is used by most Melkite clergy in various liturgical contexts.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

You certainly have permission to like it, I do. I just fail to see how one can the Revised Ruthenian unworthy and find the Revised Melkite praiseworthy, when the two share so much in common. I also think critique of translation should be seperated from critique of rubrics because these are two seperate issues.

As to the Great Entrance I am aware that most translations use "May the Lord God remember us all in His kingdom..." But I recall one of the bigger criticisms (not neccesarily yours) was the lack of "Orthodox Christians" at this point. Since it doesn't appear most translations the Metroploia's use, both 65 and 07 book, of "Christians of the true faith" shouldn't be that big of a deal.

As for childish criticism, you must be missing my facetiousness as these are not my criticisms (I have none for the Revised Melkite Liturgy) but what I envisage the criticisms of those who complained about the RDL are or will be.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Serge,

Allow me to list the rubrical problems the Revised Melkite Liturgy shares with the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy based on your enumeration in your book, blank means no problem according to your evaluation:

1) No rubrics for opening of closing the royal doors.

2) The rubric for making the Sign of the Cross with the Gospel Book appears.

3) The rubric telling the deacon where to stand appears.

4) I think the assumption can be made that the Little Entrance is made during the Monogenes when only one Antiphon is taken.

5)

6) Incensation is reduced it would seem.

7)

8)

9)

10) The Diskos is not placed on the deacon's head but he holds it at the level of his forehead with both hands.

11) The Aitesis is suppressed.

12) The heading "The Creed" appears but not until immediately before the deacon's "In wisdom let us be attentive."

13) "The doors. The doors." are suppressed unless catechumens are present.

14)

15) Two petitions are optional.

16)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21) Precut particles are permitted for Communing the faithful rather than using particles taken from the NI KA portions.

22) Again the Diskos is not placed on the deacon's head.

23) There is no mention of alternate Ambon prayers but there are alternate Antiphon Prayers, Entrance Prayers, Trisagion Prayers, Second Prayers of the Faithful, and Prayers of Thanksgiving.

24)

25)

26)


So my count is 13 of 26, 50% of rubrical problems are shared by the Revised Ruthenian and Revised Melkite Liturgies. I will list the shared textual inaccuracies later.

Fr. Deacon Lance

21) Precut particles are permitted for Communing the faithful rather than using particles taken from the NI KA portions

A complete abomination whether Melkite or Ruthenian.

Deviation from traditional rubrics yes. Abomination? Considering that whether from the NI KA portions or from precut particles it is still the Life-givivng Most Holy and Precious Body of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ abomination is a bit much.

I would agree with you there. I'm all for the most traditional form of celebration and maintaining the integrity and significance of certain liturgical actions, but it stretches good sense to call THAT an abomination.

Gordo

I agree with Gordon as well. But looking at the major points that have been raised over the RDL by most - inclusive language, "adjusting" the language of the Creed, allowing the priest to take fuller Antiphons according to the text in the Liturgicon the Melkite approach is quite different, as well as a general allowance for presbyteral economia that is not present in the "sole text" of the RDL. And if additional parts can be taken when Catechumens are present, there is no specific prohibition that these cannot be taken at other times.

Mandating an aloud Anaphora will be as difficult now as it was in the time of Justinian, and possibly as successful as well...

I assist at the altar every Sunday morning. I've watched the entire proskimidia many times. It is in itself a very prayerful and solemn service. I had never seen a full one done until I joined the OCA.

Can someone on here tell me why this most crucial part of the Divine Liturgy would be shortened and why pre cut particles are used?

Short of someone to bake the prosphora, what possible reason is there to not do a proper proskimidia? Surely it's taught in the seminary.

It cuts about 10-15 minutes from the length of liturgy which keeps most Byzantine Catholic liturgies under on hour.

U-C

But it's done privately before the DL in most places I've seen--never as PART OF the liturgy. At my parish the priest starts it about 8:45 and the DL starts at 9:00. Don't most places do it this way? Pre-cut or not, it's always done, albeit, just in a different way.

Traditionally, before the RDL, when Proskomedia began, the cantor would start singing para-liturgical hymns. Since the RDL, it is done in silence.

Ungcsertezs

As I said, right now I am working under a serious time pressure for other commitments involving research and writing. I am in no position to discuss that number of points at the drop of a hat.

Again, I would suggest placing the two texts side-by-side for a comparison, That might indicate how it is possible to consider one decidedly better than the other.

Meanwhile, anyone who wants me to write a thorough review of the Eparchy of Newton's new text will have to be patient with me. But I will go so far as to say that the very fact that the Eparchy of Newton is circulating this text for commentary and criticism speaks volumes and is entirely to the credit of the Eparchy of Newton.

Incidentally, I would disagree that rubrics and translation are so unrelated (except in the case of the rubrics being done by group a and the prayer-texts by group b - which has happened in at least one translation which is been in use for four decades). When the same mind-set is reflected in both, that becomes quite interesting.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

I understand you are busy and don't expect you to be able to respond right now.

Below are the textual inaccuracies the Revised Melkite Liturgy shares with the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy based on your enumeration in your book, blank means no problem according to your evaluation:


1)

2) country place rather than village

3)

4)

5) to minister with us rather serving together with us

6) Holy Mighty One rather than Holy Strong One

7)

8) incline your compassion towards us rather than send down your compassions upon us

9) a place of happiness, a place of peace is used rather than a place of verdure, a place of refreshment

10) the faults of the people is used rather than the ignorances of the people

11)

12) The Holy Spirit shall come upon you rather than May the Holy Spirit come upon you (the Ruthenian 07 book uses this)

13) For the precious gifts here offered rather than here set forth

14) Spiritual rather than rational sacrifice

15) upon these gifts here offered rather here set forth

16) rightly proclaiming rather than rightly dividing or teaching

17)

18)

19)

20) trespassess is retained rather than debts

21) same paragraph, although expanded, appears.

22)

23)

So my count is 13 of 22, over 50%, textual inaccuracies are shared by the Revised Ruthenian and Revised Melkite Liturgies, one of which, #12, the Ruthenian 07 book corrected.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In most parishes the Proskomede is started 10-15 minutes before the Liturgy proper. However, it is still part of the Liturgy and nothing is preventing the faithful for coming to Church for it. It was simply not seen as of utmost importance for the faithful to be there for it. They have no part in it which is why in most places they are occupied with either para-liturgical hymns or the third and sixth hours.

In my experience para-liturgical hymns are started either when the priest comes out for the Proskomede or when he begins the great incensation depending on what the cantor feels like that day. In my own parish some are there for the Proskomede, others don't come until right before the great incensation which starts on the hour.

As to pre-cut particles, yes they are used to save time but not at the Proskomede, the length of that being determined by the number of commemorations the priest makes. (There is a story of one priest, now a saint, sorry can't remember the name, who took 1-2 hours for Proskomede because of all the commemorations he made.)

The NI KA portions are subdivided for Communion after "One is holy, one is Lord..." during the communion antiphon. My own belief has always been that this was more about an aversion to cutting the consecrated Body of Christ, much like the no chewing the Host policy Latin nuns taught Catholic school kids.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In his excellent and well-taken comments on the Prothesis (which I would rather call the Preparation, but on the issue of terminology I bow to Father Robert Taft's preference) Father Deacon Lance is quite correct.

The Saint in question is Saint John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco. A magnificent video-recording of his canonization is available, and I recommend it highly.

Fr. Serge

Not that it matters much to anyone here...

But, I attended a Ruthenian parish for about a year under the old liturgy and wanted very much to switch rites after much consideration. To make a long story short, the new liturgy was a deal breaker for me, but happily, I live in ATL and am close to a Melkite parish on Ponce de Leon. So, Fr. Serge's news is most welcome.

However, I warn everyone now: by my involvement with any eastern church, the chances of them switching to a gender inclusive, modernist liturgy goes up exponentially. I'm a walking curse. If you are a Greek Catholic reading this and want to save your liturgy, send me a lot of money in Euros

Seriously, I'm curious as to which of the parishes appears "healthier": The one that has stuck to tradition, or the other which has made compromises not always reflective of the best of its rich heritage. The Melkite church in Athens (a city close to ATL) is supposed to be a magnet for converts. Maybe the learned fathers of the Ruthenian liturgical commission might probe more deeply into the relationship between evangelization and traditional liturgy. The young woman I met who was a member of the Melkite church didn't seem to have any issues with the received formulations and prayers.

What I see in ATL are a bunch of people in my age category (mid-30s) who've no community and are socially isolated. This is a phenomenon caused by any number of factors, but it appears to me that many people would gladly accept membership in an "ethnic" parish in order to gain what the broader American society cannot offer anymore (if it in fact ever did).

Dear Sultan,

URKHAN! And if that puzzles you as a Ukrainian -speaker what it refers to.

If someone gives you lots of euros, do move to Dublin. We serve the Divine Liturgy without abbreviation, don't use English, and follow the Julian Calendar. Either you will come to love us, or you will flee in horror back to wherever!

Fr. Serge

What is the language spoken in the home by most of the people who attend the liturgy? Is it not the practice of the east to serve the Divine Liturgy in the language of the people. If in Dublin, then Irish it would be I s'pose.
Surgei

That question belongs in the plural - this is a polyglot parish. At home the majority of the faithful probably speak Ukrainian; some would be apt to speak Russian. Others speak Irish; still others speak English, a few speak French and two or three enjoy using conversational Latin.

Fr. Serge

I'm not Ukrainian, although I dated one who refused to teach me the language. I like the sound of foreign languages and study German at the cultural center here.

If one studies the history of ethnic parishes in America, it becomes clear that the hierarchy of the Latin rite especially have hated the use of foreign tongues in worship. I just completed a graduate level course in American religious history and was appalled to see that Bp. Ireland was not the only one to have despised the teaching and use of German in parish schools and newspapers. So sad. Many do not realize that apart from theological tampering, foreign languages sharpen and broaden the mind in a good way.

I don't know much about the hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church here, but it seems to me their approach to the DL smacks of the American obsession with forced centralization. It's second nature to the natives, even if their parents were immigrants. The public sphere invades and penetrates everything, including worship, family life and education.

I'm more concerned about Fr. Deacon's points regarding the similarities between the Ruthenian and Greek reforms. Do the Melkite parishes have some leeway in how far they go with tradition? Might one discover that many parishes are very traditional (like yours Father) even though there is a minimalism present in the formal rubrics?

So come to Dublin and learn Irish, Ukrainian and Russian - all in the same church. I don't speak German, though I have friends who do. Someone once advised me that I needn't learn German, but if I should chance to learn German, I should then be sure to read Goethe.

John Ireland, may his name be blotted out, was also strenuously opposed to Irish. The only "foreign language" he seems to have been able to live with was Latin.

There is still a prejudice, based on the premise that in order to be a "real Ammurican" (mis-spelling is deliberate) one must abandon any language other than English. One result seems to be that the quality of English drops alarmingly.

I hesitate to comment on your question about "leedway in how far the Melkite parishes go with tradition" or whether some parishes are "very traditional even though there is a minimalism present in the formal rubrics" - not that the question is poor or off the point, but that it would be so easy for me to misunderstand it. At the risk of sounding Gnostic, perhaps I might suggest that the Byzantine liturgical tradition requires a quasi-instinctive sensitivity to what will somehow go with the flow, and what will be destructive. But that is a seriously dangerous premise to go on.

Fr. Serge

There is a great value in retaining the "old" languages in the
Liturgy, be the language Aramaic, Arabic, Slavonic, Ukrainian, Latin or whatever. For one thing it provides a sense of continuity with the past. For another, it tends to make us
less parochial. We need to be reminded that not all people everywhere at all times spoke and prayed just as we do. For another, modern American English is flat, dull, stale and unprofitable, being the product of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Edmac

I just have a quick question that I am sure some one here can answer: Is this New Divine Liturgy book that is out now "the" Divine Liturgy, or are we to ecpect future revisions? Should we purchase the book, or wait for the "next" and "improved" edition?

I say this a lot in this forum, but from your lips to God's ears! I personally would save my "peniaze," from the "mamonár".

Just my two cents.....

Please do not come to the Orthodox Church. I'll pay you anything you want!!!

Seriously though, the gender neutral revised Liturgy was a serious problem for me and my family before our journey to Holy Orthodoxy. I was particularly concerned about my baby daughter growing up with such worldly compromises. There is no such gender inclusive nonsense in our Orthodox parish. Furthermore, half of the Liturgy is chanted in Church Slavonic. Children learn other languages very quickly when they are young and I expect my child will know Church Salvonic better than myself in the near future--I am please about that. Oh yeah, did I mention we are now on the old calendar? Glory be to God!

I do not believe the revision will last, but I do not know how long it will take to reverse the damage--perhaps a generation. I know that many letters were written to Rome by some very influential people. My letter was answered by the Vatican (but I am not influential) and they acknowledged receipt of my written discourse. But of course by the time I received the Vatican response, I was already Orthodox.

My prayers continue for the Ruthenian Catholics.

It's interesting that if you read the earlier posts in the forum there was much consternation (from me as well) that Slavonic would not be allowed in the new Liturgy since it was not in the new books already. The answer given was that the new books were already so big, to include anything in Slavonic would make them so much bigger some parishioners would need a crane to life them.

But just earlier, in the post about St. Nicholas, I was on the Cantor's Institute and there was an announcement about the release of the Liturgy in Slavonic. Does anyone know of any parishes that have purchased the newly issued Slavonic books? Or are some parishes still trying to get the money to buy the new RDL and can't even think of affording the newly issued Slavonic books as well? Just curious. I'm not trying to start anything. Nor am I slamming anyone or calling them names or disparaging anything they might have said. It was explained that it would be available, and it is. Now, who has them and have they used them? If so, what has the reaction been? Any reviews? Thoughts?

Tim

Tim,

It is the new RDL that was translated from English into Slavonic by someone from Philadelphia.

Ung

U-C,

There would be no need to translate the RDL since it was translated from Slavonic. You would only need to print the Slavonic books with the RDL format.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Um, I thought the RDL was translated from Greek to English. Maybe I am wrong , but that was distinctly the impression I was given.

...meaning that it differs greatly from the 1942 Official Ruthenian Recension Slavonic edition that Rome authorized.
It includes the same abbreviations that the new English RDL has...

Ung

Indeed, much as the Lekvulic 1978 "pew book" did, allowing for some adjustments (like adding the third antiphon, and restoring the Beatitudes). Yet tjm1999's point is valid: wasn't the complaint made that the bishops no longer allowed the use of Slavonic, and that the new service book should have parallel English and Slavonic? Or does any proposed Slavonic text need to have MORE than the books that the bishops or the seminary press published in the past? (At the Slavonic Liturgy at Uniontown, only one verse at each antiphon was sung, and I heard no one trying to chime in with the "missing" verses; was that a "bad" liturgy?)

The official books give the ENTIRE text of the Typical Psalms, with the second being sung as follows: Glory... Psalm 145... Now and ever... O Only-begotten. Are you suggesting this be restored, and how hard would you work to convince old-school cantors to take them that way if we published them in that form?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. I hate to break it to you, but some of the texts we sing in Slavonic don't match the official books either.

In some ways, the official books are a good standard to work for, and in other ways they are a shibboleth - used as a theoretical standard and a test of "eastern-ness", but not always taken seriously. Even our administrator objected to using more of the psalms in the Presanctified Liturgy that people were "used to" and had memorized - while the official books simply say to recite a kathisma of the psalter.

And I point this out as someone who has spend years praising them and explaining them to people, and dozens of hours adjusting the Uniontown service books to match the official order of service, when we prepared the MCI Vespers and Matins books.

Jeff,

At Uniontown Liturgy, the Cantor was told exactly what to sing, and could not wavier from the given instructions.

The 1942 Slavonic book doesn't need to be re-translated, why even waste money to print it? Parishes that use Slavonic don't need a re-translated Slavonic RDL book. It seems redundant to me.

U-C

What re-translation are you talking about, Ung?

There certainly are SOME parishes than can and will use a Slavonic text for the Divine Liturgy. Or is Slavonic only for those who memorized it in childhood?

Jeff

Jeff,

Wasn't this Philadelphia Slavonic RDL booklet for private use only? It doesn't have a "Nihil Obstat" from the Metropolitan Archbishop, while the Levkulic book was approved by the ruling hierarch (Archbishop Kocisko) when it was printed in 1978.

U-C

All I can tell you, Ung, is that it uses approved Slavonic texts, approved rubrics, and may God bless and prosper all those who worked on it, and those priests and layfolk who use it! Since a complete parallel English/Slavonic hymnal and Divine Liturgy text is still in preparation, the MCI gratefully accepted and made use of the booklet that one of our major parishes prepared. I have already received inquires from a number of other parishes about it, including one pastor interested in preparing a priest's text in the same format.

What do you WANT out of this? Do you want God to be praised, worshipped and thanked, in Slavonic as well as in English, or are you just looking to score points? I would hope it is the former and not the latter! Do you have any problems with the Slavonic text, or just want a reason to reject it?

Jeff

P.S. One thing the Levkulic book DIDN'T have was the deacon's parts spelled out, in English or Slavonic. I was very happy to see them in the new Slavonic Liturgy booklet, and even happier that we have deacons who will take them! That is one major change our churches have seen in the past 30 years - the restoration of the diaconate in parishes.

What a waste of time and resources to create something only because it mimics the English RDL. Let me know when this Philadelphia booklet receives approval from the Metropolitan Archbishop.

U-C

Hmm. This presents a possible amusement - print the RDL parallel with the official Greek text and the official Ruthenian Church-Slavonic text. Wouldn't that be fun?

Come to think of it, though, that would present a printing problem - it's best to have four rather than three (if there are three, the middle one gets partly blocked by the page break). So make the fourth the red book.

Fr. Serge

Steve Petach is correct. Father David Petras has written that it was translated from Greek. He and the bishops seem to have a vast dislike for the Ruthenian recension.

Honest to gosh guys, I wasn't trying to start something. I was just reading the thread on St. Nicholas and read this part:

"People's Booklet for the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic

A text of the people's parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Slavonic, with English rubrics, is now available which follows the order of the first part of The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. This booklet (28 pages, 14 sheets on legal size paper) was prepared by Cantor Joe Ferenchick of Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it intended for use in those parishes celebrating the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic, either in whole or in part. Many thanks for this valuable contribution!

Article added 09-23-2007"

And I thought about the hurt feelings (including mine) when we thought there was to be no Slavonic anywhere in the Liturgy. That misconception was cleared up by Father Petras and others and the fact that Slavonic was used in Liturgies attended by the ArchEparch himself. So putting two plus two together, I wondered when we could reasonably expect to see these books in our pews. Which would make me a very, very happy man. Especially if it happened in time for Christmas. I realize that might be rushing it a bit, since I am sure there is a cost per book involved and not every church has money just lying around waiting to be spent on extra pew books.

But I don't want to start another round of discussions that wind up with a thread being closed off by the Administrator because of content.

If anyone has concrete information, it would be nice to know. Otherwise, I'm a patient man.

If you read the quotation I copied and pasted above, it says "This booklet" and that is a link to this pdf: http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/servicebooks/DivineLiturgySlavonic.pdf

So we can read and even print and take with us if we want. it's only 14 pages long.

I don' want to start dem Hatfields and McCoys ag'n, but I jus' like muh Church Slavonic!

Tim

The Council of Hierarchs have not approved any books with Slavonic in them. Until they give public and written instruction allowing Slavonic the RDL books are the "only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worth of most special mention, notwithstanding."

You can argue all you want about how the bishops did not mean to exclude Slavonic. The fact is that the bishops have chosen not to issue official, written guidance about the use of Slavonic. Mr. Thompson can write on this forum that he said that Archbishop allows it. His word is worthless. Bishop Andrew has been contacting priests who have prepared text only booklets and demanding their removal from the pews. It did not matter that these text only booklets were English and Slavonic. It did not matter that these booklets followed the Petras/Schott Liturgy. They are forbidden and it is an act of disobedience to use them.

Steve,

You are correct the 07 Liturgicon was translated from the Greek Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic Sluzebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English Liturgicon (Pittsburgh, 1965). In any case there is no need to retranslate a Slavonic text from the 07 Liturgicon as the Slavonic already exists.

Fr. Deacon Lance

JD,

Professor Thompson has stated many times each bishop and or pastor has the final say. If Bishop Andrew chose to forbid Slavonic that was his perogative, even if it was not a good decision. In Pittsburgh Slavonic is used freely with the knowledge and approval of the Metropolitan. Now that Bishop Andrew is retired it is a moot point. Ask Bishop William's permission.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Since when did Professor Thompson's statements carry authority in the BCA? I said it before and I'll say it again, the BCA hierarchs have issued statements that preclude Slavonic, period. I hope that Professor Thompson is correct and this could all be cleared up by the Bishops retracting their poorly written letter.

Monomakh

The Slavonic text isn't so much a retranslation (except for the few word changes since the Slavonic already existed for 99% of it) but formatting it to match the changes of the RDL.

JMTCs (just my two cents)

If the Bishop forbids something, the priest's choice is rather moot!

"If the Bishop forbids something, the priest's choice is rather moot!"

True but if the bishop allows it then falls to the priest whether it will be used in the parish.

"I said it before and I'll say it again, the BCA hierarchs have issued statements that preclude Slavonic, period."

You can say it till your blue in the face it isn't going to make it true. Slavonic is allowed period, at least in 3 of 4 Eparchies. If having a Slavonic Liturgy at Otpust, where all the bishops are present, isn't proof of the veracity of Professor's statement then I don't know what is.

It seems to me you and others want this alleged prohibition to be true so you have another log to throw on the fire of why the RDL should torched. Which in my opinion is confusing issues. Those who want to be able to do the full Liturgy will win the request, I believe. I am not so sure what translation they will be allowed to use to do that however.

Fr. Deacon,

The Uniontown Otpust one token Slavonic liturgy (with NO bishop presiding or concelebrating) does not mean there is wide-spread Slavonic usage. The last bishop the actually recited liturgical parts in Church Slavonic was probably Bishop Bilock and/or Archbishop Kocisko some 15-16 years ago.

Ungcsertezs

How true.

At least four parishes in the Parma eparchy that I know of use no Slavonic at all. It's actually frowned upon and strongly discouraged at my former parish. The priests hair stands up if the cantor sings "Svjaty Bozhe".

Why do you think that is?

What seems like a strong desire by those in charge to kill any ties to our Slavic heritage. I'll go to my grave defending my Rusyn heritage and Slavonic Byzantine liturgical tradition!!!

At Fr. Marcus' ordianation, Bishop William described the Byzantine Catholic Church as "Addicted to the Divine Liturgy, addicted to singing, and addicted to pirogies" . . .

Somehow, I don't see him as likely be unsympathetic to a bit of tradition . . .

hawk

Fr. Nils indicated that it was $15 on the initial order, and $20 for later replacements.

hawk

The Slavonic liturgy booklets that tjm was talking about can probably be prepared at a copy shop for about $1.50 apiece, including cover and stapling.

Copies of the hardbound "green book" for the Byzantine Catholic Church (the new 2007 service book) are sold by the Byzantine Seminary Press for $15 a copy.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Chances that he will allow Slavonic? About the same as winning the Mega Millions or other multi state lottery.

It is disconcerting to hear that the odds are worse than slim to none for a parish to use Slavonic in the Eparchy of Passaic. I can see why it would not be pragmatic in a church where no one understands it, but if a situation exists (I don't know all of the Passaic Eparchy well) where there are immigrants and/or those who understand and are comfortable with Slavonic, why in the world would it not be not only permitted, but encouraged in order for that parish to thrive?

Sadly, Steve, I think that your assessment is right on.

Monomakh

I still don't know why anyone would not allow Slavonic. I would think they would encourage it, at least the basic greetings and prayers--Svatje Boze, Christos Voskrese, etc. And the Otce Nas is just too beautiful in Slavonic. Why on earth would any priest not want to use it, let alone an Eparch try to stifle it's use? Maybe I'm naive, but I find it hard to believe. How does it benefit the entire Church to abandon our roots? All it does is give people one more reason to attend an RC church. Our differences make us who we are and make us more than just another Catholic Church! If the Eparchs truly do want to do away with Slavonic and our heritage, then they are basically trying to destroy the church and do away with their own jobs. What advantage is there in doing away with Slavonic?

Tim

It's probably a consequence of a generational phenomenon often found in immigrant ethnic communities - the bishops and priests trying to dump the old language are of the generation which is determined to be "100% American". The following generation usually realizes that something precious has been lost as a result, and starts striving to recover it.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As a member of a parish in the Eparchy of Passaic, I will only add that Slavonic is used in just about every liturgy -- typically, Holy God, the Cherubic Hymn, Holy, holy, holy, It is truly proper, or the Our Father. And this is post-RDL.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Glad to hear that, especially since there are no Slavonic settings in the new RDL book.

Ungcsertezs

Although Slavonic use has taken a downturn in recent months (we used to do the Trisagion and the Lord's Prayer in Slavonic), just this past Sunday we did sing "Holy God" in Slavonic.

We also usually sing the last refrain of whatever post-Liturgy Marian hymn in Slavonic.

Glad to hear that your parish is still singing the Marian paraliturgical hymns. Most parishes have stopped because the Marian hymnal and Levkulic books (with the Marian songs in back of the book) were thrown out.

Ung

O Marije maty Boze...Probably the best Marian hymn in Slavonic.

We still have the blue Marian books.

We also manage to sing paraliturgical songs during communion even though the old books are gone. The cantors just start and people join in. The older folks know them and us younger ones just need some help to remember them. I'm actually surprised how much of the Slavonic I can remember by trying to sing along.

Yes, it is a shame that the Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church is trying to purge all types of para-liturgical singing!

Ung

For a while there the cantors just sang the Communion Pslam with all the verses and things really did not seem right (everything else notwithstanding). I can't remember when, exactly, but definitely by the end of summer we were singing the old hymns again.

Has this thread been locked? Replys aren't being enabled for some technical reason.

Ung

Dear Ung,

The Cantor's Companion specifically encourages hymn singing. For that matter, the Marian Hymnal is still available from the Byzantine Seminary Press. On what basis do you make your claim that all hymns are being "purged"?

Jeff

Jeff,

Without the paraliturgical songs being in the new pewbooks, and because parishes have thrown out their Levkulic books and Marian booklets, visitors can't sing along with those parishioners who already know them by heart. It definitely makes it impossible to sing them in Slavonic. Again, I ask, why singing the Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns has been deemed un-Eastern and a form of a Latinization? Isn't that the reason they are not found in the new RDL books?

Ung

A Reminder

The Revised Divine Liturgy Forum is for the discussion of the Pittsburgh Revised Divine Liturgy, including both the principles on which the Revision has been based and the specifics of the Revision itself. It is not for the promotion of unofficial books and materials.

I can agree that the promulgation is unclear as to whether additional / alternate materials may be used in parishes; and it is still rather unclear as to whether there is an official policy on the use of Church Slavonic. Still, the specifics of the promulgation should be followed by those in the Pittsburgh Metropolia until the bishops choose to give further official direction. The bishops know there are outstanding questions and can provide guidance if and when they choose. Ultimately what is sung or not sung is done under the direction of pastors, who (hopefully) have some official directive from the Council of Hierarchs. If they do not, they need to ask.

So, discuss the good and bad of the Revision. But do not promote any material that has not been officially promulgated by the Council of Hierarchs.

PS to ByzKat: Please see our earlier exchange of PMs for the answers to the questions you are re-posting here. I have no answers to your questions here that I have not already answered via PM. I recommend that anyone seeking guidance ask their pastor.

PPS: Since this topic has wandered from its original topic I am closing it.