It will soon be one year since the Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church of America has mandated the RDL. How is your Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic parish doing post-RDL? Has the attendance at your services increased or decreased? How is the congregational singing at your parish?

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Ung

Glad you started this thread Ung...I know after the initial "heat" I'm interested in how the implementation has gone...

...Well,

My home parish has been using a hybrid liturgy, priest parts are the RDL translation, changeable parts are still the Levkulic book(tropars, kondaks. And we are a elder parish, so we are in the red and not black as far as the size of the congregation.

Ung

For our parish in St. Louis, the RDL was actually a good thing: it gave those of us who grew up in other Ruthenian churches a chance to pull the mission toward the east. Several of us "newcomers" (not to the Byzantine church, but to St. Louis) wanted to change things a bit (I'm NOT talking about the Liturgy), and "Look this is new to ALL of us, but we've got to do it" was a good excuse to bring up some other minor issues we wanted to discuss. All in all, our singing has much improved (our cantor + five or six actually meet to practice occasionally).

The Revised Divine Liturgy is a disaster nearly everywhere. In the Archeparchy there are about a dozen parishes that refuse to even consider using the books (good for them!). Passaic and Parma each have about 8 or 9 parishes that have shelved the Pew Books and replaced them with home made text only pamphlets. Some use the Revised Text. Some use a hybrid of the Revised Text and the 1964 text. I know of a few parishes in Parma that have published their own texts and that they contain the full Divine Liturgy. I know of numerous parishes where the books are in the pews but the cantors sing the new words to the old music. I know of cantors who have quit. I know parishes that sort of take the RDL on Sundays but on weekdays take the 1964 texts and music. Singing is pretty bad everywhere. Lots of people don't come anymore.

Bishop John Kudrick seems to realize that the RDL is a disaster. Archbishop Basil won't talk about it. Bishop Skurla could care less. Rumors have it that Bishop John will be one of those who topple it. There is a lot of talk now of how the whole liturgical commission didn't want the RDL and how they had to be "obedient" to Bishop Pataki. That is not accurate. But now that Bishop Pataki is retired there is a good chance that a groundswell of voices from the clergy and faithful could topple the RDL now. If they don't speak now it could take years.

Although the older parishoners would prefer to keep the Church Slavonic, those attending the English are doing well in the conversion. I have observed an increase in attendance of our English Liturgy and in more people attempting to participate, especially the youth. Having the music with the text is a huge aid.

Without physical backup as to which 12 parishes here are refusing to use the RDL and which 8 parishes there (and by name)are refusing to comply, I view these accusations the same as those from those individuals who contend they will not attend the liturgy because it takes more than one hour. Our Liturgy continues to be one of the most beautiful on earth and we need to think about the parable of the mustard seed. We should open our hearts to the word of God, not cover them with weeds because of change.

On another thread you stated:



And when asked for proof, you responded with:



Which is it? Does Bishop John have contempt for the Ruthenian recension or not?

That seems pretty accurate from an outsiders perspective...

The first time he says, "Ruthenian Liturgy" meaning "RDL".

The second time he says, "Ruthenian Recension".

Two different things.

No offense intended but I will not celebrate this big mess. Instead I'll celebrate a non -feminized Liturgy somewhere else.

I've never even attended that service, and have no intention of so doing.

Fr. Serge

When I married a Ruthenian I thought it was better than the new mass and I liked the idea that they gave Communion to babies. Then I got to know the monks at Holy Resurection monastery and a Melkite priest and I realized how rich the East was. I have fallen in love with it. The parish that we were at I am sorry to say, didn't teach me a thing about being Eastern. When the new liturgy came out I could see how sad and angry the Latin folks were. This has been talked about at length but it has been such a huge problem to deal with.

Fair questions all around.

I do not think that our bishops are in any way contemptuous of the official Ruthenian recension. I do think that they - like so many in our Church - do not know it well enough to understand what a jewel it is. Because they do not know it for the jewel it is they do not realize the harm they have done to it with their Revision.

I remain positive for the future, as I have seen over and over how people fall in love with the official Ruthenian Liturgy once they finally experience it. I have been told that the three of our bishops who made the pilgrimage to Europe for the Anniversary of the Death of the Blessed Bishop Theodore were astounded at seeing the full Ruthenian Liturgy celebrated, and how attractive it was. I have also been told that Bishop John was a fantastic celebrant of the Slavonic Hierarchical Divine Liturgy while there. Given that he did not grow up with it he must have spent a lot of time in preparation. That alone might cause him to fall in love with the official Liturgy and allow it in his diocese. That could be enough of a catalyst for the Church to finally reject the RDL and all similar re-inventions of the Liturgy and finally embrace the jewel that is our official Liturgy.

So please keep hoping and praying! Some day we will have the full Ruthenian Liturgy, in an accurate translation, and with good music.

Some feedback from Holy Ghost BC Parish in Jessup, Pa. (near Scranton). Usually, my son and I serve in the Altar while my wife and daughter are in the nave. We have excellent cantors who have a strong knowledge of music. They go completely with the new books, and sing the music as it is written. I actually like some of the things which Prof. Thompson has done. Much of the music is closer to the original Slavonic melodies (i.e.some of the "Svjatyj Boze" melodies). However, both my wife and daughter indicate that most people do not use the new books, and many have stopped singing. When the new books were first issued, many tried to follow, but found them too cumbersome, and stopped using them. There was a negative reaction against the absence of hymns in the books. I noticed that, just the other day, there were a few people attempting to follow the pew book, but they were visitors. I have heard some negative reaction about the translational changes. Some don't like the "inclusive" language (include me with that crowd). Others question the use of a Greek term (Theotokos)where most don't know Greek. I like the use of that term, because that is the title given to the Holy Virgin by the Council of Ephesus. Personally, I really don't like the supression of a full celebration as envisioned by the Rescension. Unfortunately, most of our parishioners don't know, or can barely remember, what a full celebration according to the Ruthenian Rescension is like, because they never have seen it in our Church (various priests over the years have taken fuller or less fuller celebrations, but I doubt that any of them went strictly according to the Rescension-because bishops have enshrined, by granting permission to celebrate, a "chopped" version of the Liturgy), or it has been a very
long time since they saw it, so it is not really an issue with them. Many of them do show up at various OCA, ACROD, (and ROCOR) Orthodox functions in the area, such as the annual Memorial Day pilgrimage celebrations at St. Tikhon's Monastery/Seminary. Many of them have relatives in those jurisdictions. Those celebrations are the closest thing to the Ruthenian Rescension liturgical prescriptions that they see (but they may not be aware of the connection). Hope this gives an accurate picture.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

We report to Parma and have been following the RDL long before the mandate to switch over. Most people in our Parish use the books and I validate that claim with the fact you can hear massive page flipping when the times come (ex: Since there are seven or eight versions, the "Our Father" is a big flipping event) .. We have been paying a professional cantor to help us, but she has no Byzantine roots and tries to follow the music out of the book, which doesn't translate well. When she doesn't show up, the whole of the church is filled with a low rumbling of people who really don't and can't sing the changes, but we try. Our Parish is nearly 100 years old, but no one currently attending can sing these changes. I know personaly if my Parish wasn't founded by my Great Grandparents I would take my Family and leave (there is a Ukraian Church in town also.) As to the people, we really haven't lost any, and in fact we might have gained two or three regs. This has nothing to do with the book, but more with us as a parish trying to re-gain our footing on being a Parish who cares about the community.

Mentioning visitors to the liturgy, I had a couple of them comment to me after the Christmas Liturgy (which was the first time they at seen the new books). Although they were confused by the flipping around, they all that they were good books and would allow them follow and participate more once they became accustomed to them. I heard no negative comments.

Hey, I just met a couple of them on Monday morning. They traveled nearly 150 miles for the funeral of a newborn of a family in our parish. (That family is out at the monastary with some regularity.

By the way, the monastery has now switched to Romanian Catholic jurisdiction.

hawk

...Romanian Greek Catholic jurisdiction.

Ung

There’s always a right way and wrong way to present new ideas, and perhaps telling a group of adults you “have” to do it this way by June 29th may have been the wrong approach, but it’s done, stop fighting it. I don’t understand why some priests and churches refuse to use the new books. Who do they think they are? Our new green books are for the most part very good. It gives us choices so that the Liturgy doesn’t get stale and mundane. When your Bishop says to use it, who are we to say no, or ask why? We can spend the next 20 years fighting over why it was done, why so many changes, why the word changes, etc., or we can accept the Bishop’s wishes, move on and enjoy the beautiful liturgy. Life is short, enjoy it.

Presentation was key in the acceptance of the book. If the Cantor and/or priest were positive in their approach, the congregation would follow. Saying it’s no good, what were they thinking, we’re not using it not only goes against the Bishops’ wishes, but creates a negative audience. If it was presented in a positive way…..wow, this is great, look at all our options, how nice to have music for everything, etc., I bet there would be far less complaints. In our church, we took a few weeks before actually using the new book, to practice before liturgy. Just a few minutes, just a quick song or two, and reassurance that there is not that much different, do not fear the changes. We picked out the version, whether A, B, C, etc. that sounded most like the melodies we had always sung and went with them. We made bookmarks and put one in each book, to remind people which version will be sung on a usual basis. Our bulletin points out the pages to go to or put a ribbon on, and on days when there are too many page turns, we print out the handout sheet prepared by MCI. It works for us. When there are new people or visitors in church, someone nearby always helps them, keeping them on the right page. Remarks from them are often that it wasn’t so bad and that the book in the Roman Catholic Church is much worse and harder to use. There are those in church that never sing anyway, so why worry that they are not singing now and blame it on the book when that may not be the case. About 7 years ago my husband and I visited a Florida church and when the liturgy started, we started to sing along per our usual custom. It didn’t take long before we noticed very very few people were singing….and this was 7 years before the new books. The new book is not the problem, people are just using its newness as an excuse. They fear change and are too lazy to learn something new. Another Florida church was the exact opposite….we sang out loud to our hearts content, practiced and was encouraged by the priest.

I recently visited a Ukrainian Church in Ohio and their book is twice as thick as our green book, and they all sat in the pew. They were too heavy for most of the elderly to hold, so the church had to reprint a portion of it and have stapled paper booklets for them to use. So we are not alone in the new book dilemma.

Most of our ancestors were illiterate, and could not read music, but loved their faith. They learned the music by hearing it. Change would have been hard for them too. But as we Byzantines spread out in the country and moved around for job, military or family reason, we brought our customs with us. Having lived in various states across the country and attended numerous Byzantine churches, I can attest that none of them did the liturgy or hymns the same. I feel our new green book was and is a good attempt to get us unified. At our church, many of us had our own way to sing certain things, having brought them from our old parishes. Now, with the new books and a positive attitude, we have united, sing the same melody and words, and truly enjoy the liturgy. If any participating priest or cantor visits from another church, he will feel right at home. And I think that was one of the goals of the powers that be….to unify the singing and prayers, so that no matter where you go, it will always be the same. You can fight on who’s right till the cows come home, and will have wasted your life away trying to be right. In the end, God is not going to care what melody you sang, what verses you used, or even if you sang on key. He’s going to look at the fact that you were in church and how you lived your life.

Can you tell I like the new book?

Oh, good grief. Was going to stay out of this thread, but here I go.


Never. It's a poor translation. Restore the word orthodox, unto ages of ages, and mankind...that's the beginning of a good translation.


What??? Seriously??? A liturgy that's been chanted from the beginning of Christianity get stale and mundane, never. Learn the history of the Recension and your church and you won't make silly statements like this.


Eternal life is well, eternal. Better to begin preparing now where you hope to spend eternity. The fuller Recension is even more beautiful than what you have now. IMAGINE having the OPTION to experience that???? With the RDL you can't.


Thankfully our churches are full of stubborn Slavs who know when they smell a rat. The Bishops never thought it would be greeted with such disdain. It's not about being positive, Marilyn. It's about knowing right from wrong, and this translation is wrong.




Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't care about the Roman Catholic Books and how ours compare. That's the problem right now, we have lots of Roman Catholics in our pews who say, well this Liturgy isn't as bad as Vatican II. Well of course not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been more, and a correct translation. We are being told to align ourselves with who we really are, and for anyone who doesn't know out there.....it's the ORTHODOX! Let's start comparing ourselves Liturgically with the Orthodox and see how we measure up! Now there's the yard stick!



Yes, Marilyn you are correct. It's the content of the book that's the problem.



Customs? Liturgy thought of as a custom?? Good grief. A custom is we always drink a shot of Slivovich after basket blessings on Easter with the priest. A custom isn't antidoron, the great entrance or proskomedia. That is the way we celebrate our faith through Divine Liturgy and how the world identifys the Eastern Catholics.



Unless you have paid musicians who chant the Liturgy, this will never materalize, as cantoring is an unpaid position with lots of good folks leading us in prayer who don't read music. This fact will never change. It will never be 100%. And besides, I don't think that was the end goal.



Yes, so why monkey with it at all. Save that money and put it toward evangelization so that more people could experience the fuller recension.

I emplore you to get Fr. Serge Keheler's book on why this Revised Divine Liturgy needs to be recast. It will open your eyes to the deficiencies in the translation. Stop focusing on the music, and focus on what's wrong with what's printed on the pages. Focusing on the music is just more of the smoke and mirrors.

I believe the topic of this discussion was how is your church doing now that we are coming up on the one year anniversary of using our new green books, how is attendance, and how are the people singing, not whether we agree with the printing of the book or its translation. I'm sure that was discussed elsewhere. So in answer to the original question let me rephrase my post, I feel our church is doing fine with the new book, membership has increased and our singing has improved for positive reasons stated earlier.

You have just said everything I think and feel about the RDL. I couldn't agree with you more! I also wanted to bring up the way the bishops have given this ne Liturgy. It is with an iron fist. They dismissn all the concerns about it like you somehow have the problem. Then when they see you will never agree they throw obedience at you. The agenda behind all the changes is very disturbing!

Where do I get this book?

The Romanian bishop is great. He seems to be a bishop for the right reasons. The monks are wonderful. The Romanian bishop is very supportive of the monastery as well. Go for a visit. Check out the blog they have. It is on the website.

Prayers for the family who lost a baby.

There are plenty of examples of parishes with much abbreviated Divine Liturgies were the attendance is stable and the singing is reasonably acceptable. Those are not the sole criteria on which to judge for people can get used to all kinds of things, be they good or be they bad.

The criteria for judging should use the measuring stick of the official books published by Rome for the Ruthenian recension. The criteria for change should be the official changes made by the Orthodox.

Do the rubrics in the books in use match those given in the official text exactly? (We know they do not.)

Are the English texts faithful translations (i.e., as literal and as faithful as possible with corrections made that reflect what people have memorized?). (We know they are not.)

Does the music (from whatever source) serve the text and not the text serve the music? (We know it does not.)

So the task before us is to continually encourage our bishops to do what is right, and to rescind the Revision and instead embrace our official liturgical tradition. This task is a difficult one and may take a lifetime to accomplish. But it worth undertaking and will, in time, be successful.

Authenticity in Liturgy is the goal. It works. Always.

Fabricated Liturgy does not work. Ever.

We're planning on doing so, possibly at the next pilgrimage or other major event. Our tent could really use more use, anyway



Thank you. Even after miscarriages, I can't imagine the pain of this loss . . .

hawk

I have read with interest the one-year evaluations of the 2007 translation of the Divine Liturgy. My observation is that if people detest the translation they will tend to evaluate its reception as disastrous. For me, it would be desirable to have an objective outside observer.

I do see two problems in the evaluation of the Liturgy. Most of the criticism on the Byzantine Forum revolves around the structure and form of the Liturgy, and does not address its theological core. My position has been that with the Liturgy in the vernacular, it is important to restore the presbyteral prayers, particularly the anaphora. This problem is rarely addressed here. The anaphora particularly is an expression of the Paschal mystery of the faith, namely, that through death we find life, as our Lord said, “Whoever will save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake and for the sake of the gospel will find it.” This our Lord sealed by his own death and resurrection. It is what being a Christian is all about, and it is a message that we desperately need today, as we have always needed it. Will simply saying the Anaphora aloud assure that we hear this message? It most certainly opens the opportunity, and this is the theology of the Liturgy. The administrator said “authenticity in the Liturgy.” This is certainly authenticity. Paying attention to rubrics and words is important, but it can distort the Liturgy if we do not keep aware constantly of the greater theological picture. Father Kelleher’s book, for example, addresses rubrics and words, the structure of the Liturgy, but it does not deal with its theology, and I have critiqued his analysis on my web site. I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy.

The second problem is a certain fundamental liturgical literalism. For example, the “Ruthenian Recension” is identified with the 1942 Oriental Congregation edition, done mostly by one man, Fr. Cyril Korolevsky. This would mean that the “Ruthenian recension” did not exist until 1942, which is absurd. I do not mean that Fr. Korolevsky’s edition did not reflect authentic traditions of the Ruthenian church or that it was not a great work of liturgical scholarship, but only that it cannot be “identified” with the “Ruthenian recension.” This identification comes from a liturgical literalism, which some have proudly admitted, but fundamental literalism can cause much mischief. So the Administrator says, “do the rubrics in the books in use match those given in the official text exactly?” Well, actual practice does not now nor has it ever matched the text exactly, and at times the “official texts” are a bit fuzzy and have been filled in by custom (not necessarily tradition). For example, whether the presbyteral prayers are said aloud or not. Fr. Korolevsky’s edition was in Church Slavonic, but our Liturgy is now in English, and this makes a huge difference in our understanding. Some modifications can be made to his work, and the Liturgy will remain “authentic Ruthenian recension.” I observe that the 2007 translation has actually resulted in many parishes coming closer to an authentic Byzantine tradition, which is desirable, and also - and perhaps more importantly - to an authentic Christian worship.

Hello Ung,

I had a chance to talk to my aunt about her church. She told me that they usually get 100 members attend on Sunday on a regular basis, but only five or six actually are seen holding the new hymn books. It is heavy and difficult to page back and forth for every hymn. People are relying on the cantor minister for direction on melody. Many complaints about the revised melodies so much that they have gone back to singing old versions(?). I guess this means the type of singing in pre-RDL days. Their pastor still uses old books now and then. Most people she has talked to about the RDL dislike it with a passion. Singing has decreased for awhile when they first implemented it and tried to sing the new hymns. Later, they abandoned it and participation has picked up. In the past, the old hymn books would be taken by members. No thefts have occured with new RDL books. No one wants them. So far, every book that has been put out in pews has remained there. No one calls out hymn number anymore; nor does anyone change the page numbers or hymn numbers on the boards. When visiting priests who are officials of the church show up, they put out the books and make every effort to make it look like they are up on things. When dignitaries leave, they go back to what works. My aunt is frustrated.

Of course, this is hearsay. But i have no reason to doubt my aunt. She is very busy in her church community. She likes to see it continuebut is worried thta the new books have become another sore issue since the scandals. RIght now, they don't want anything more from their church thta is new. They just want to survive without having things thrown at them - new hoops to jump threw. They are afraid of any newer books that might be published.

They are still getting over the inclusive language. Personally, this makes me wonder. There seems to be two groups of women in this church; those who have feminist agendas and are pushing such changes to satisfy their involvement and thos women who are mothers or single who are proud of their femininity but don't appreciate their male dominated church patronizing them with word tweaking. There are some versions of hymns that are never taken because of the obvious sexism --- the 'Beatitudes' which omit "Sons" of God (the only word in the Bible and all ancient manuscripts). To date, my aunt tells me that this is never taken even though it was taken often in the pre-RDL days. The one cantor who is openly against this version of the Beatitudes is their only female cantor!

Ok then...

Several women in the community who are married to soldiers have noticed that their church changed their worship from praying for civil authorities and armed forces to civil authorities and those in the government (which they perceive to be a purposeful redundancy since government workers are civil workers. The military is left out and they believe that the church which is feminist is also anti-military (and liberal). My aunt tells me that these women (about five) refuse to pick up the RDL book. They pointed out that Byzantine have always prayed for their military or armed forces until now.

I find this difficult to imagine, but churches in the past have mandated crummy forms of new worship on their members. What is the purpose of doing this if it results in such animosity?

Ed

It's amazing what people perceive they hear... The actual petition reads:



But to the topic...

Parishes in the West had already been using the a form of the RDL for some time. In the official version, the notable changes are textual. Re the music, in our particular parish, the cantors (now six in number) are leading the congregational singing quite well. The faithful are using the pew books for the changeable parts. In our parish the "controversy" is a non-event. There has been no exodus.

Through marriages and births, there is a net increase of faithful. Non-cradle Byzantine Catholics moderately outnumber cradle Byzantine Catholics. In fact we have been discussing the need to expand the temple. We are at full capacity for the 10 AM Divine Liturgy, about 150. There are also a 5PM Vesperal Liturgy Sat evening (25-30 faithful) and a additional 8 AM Divine Liturgy Sunday (60-70 faithful).

?

This seems unusual, even unique. There is, I concede, no reason not to pray for those who serve the county, be it County Kerry in Ireland or Spotsylvania County in Virginia. But I've not encountered such a usage previously.

Fr. Serge

Thank you for the exact quote. It certainly does reflect a redundancy - those "in the service of our country" (a more general term like "Christians of the true faith") is definitely the more specific "armed forces" which focuses on the military. Did you overlook this? Both terms, "Christians of the true faith" and "in the service of our country", seem to reflect the political bent of the publishers of your church. The former phrase/translation reflects a phobia of anything "Orthodox"; the latter, reflects a disdain for the miliary - OUR military. what is so wrong with using "Orthodox" and "armed forces"? your church is apt to return to Greek terms for the mother of God, but not here? Why? It says a lot when one pruposely mistranslate, omit terms, and change biblical texts ("children" of God).



Where did I mention an "exodus"? I noted from her comments that the RDL books which your church mandated has proven to be unuseful, if not a hindrance. It is disliked and remains in pew shelves un-used. Would you consider it a success if only 5% of one's church community actually used the hymn book? Maybe my aunt's community is one of hte few that actually looks closely at what words are being translated and yours really don't care? I can't explain why one community sees it, but another could care less. Maybe the second reaction is the one hoped for? I don't belong to my aunt's church. You are a deacon and you cannot speak ill will of your church I would guess.
Ed

I’ve been studying Eastern Christianity for awhile and your churches have always “fought it” whatever “it” is. Mark of Ephesus “fought it” though “it” was considered a done deal.



Members of your church who are intelligent human beings, not obedient peasants, who have to use it and who have rejected it on solid grounds. Do you accept changing Scripture?



My aunt tells me that there are many melodies not in the books, hence the reason for chucking it. Every hymn book is reflection of a few experts and their favorites



This is different than…



Might have your illiterate ancestors been more attuned to actually worshipping God than trying to be expert missal thumpers? Our Christian community almost fell into missal thumping worship. Handouts to print can become expensive if you hhave already paid handsomely for new hymn book with the music already in them. That you have to do this demonstrates failure.



English or Old Slavonic language? Mukachevo or Presov melody dialect? Hard melodies or easy ones? Publisher’s favorites or worshippers’ unpublished hymns? It seems that your church is now beginning to realize that *unity* is not easy as first mandated. *Feel right at home*? Whose home? My aunt has been at *home* for many decades. Now, she feels like a foreigner in her own community. Yes. I have made a few plugs for my church ccommunity, but she hasn't responded positively.



Could this attitude also been applied to the Gnostics and Arians who, I am sure, had many nice people? Your church “fought it” tooth-and-nail.

Ed

Dear Father David,

Please provide a theological commnentary on the *children of God* which is in your Beatitudes. I am familiar with the deep and rich theological tradition of "sons of God* but not the *children of God* your church published. I have studied the ancient manuscripts and none of the texts have *children*. Why the change?

You imply that the writers on these forums are mere rubricists who can't go any deeper. This is a real disdain for those who take seriously the meaning of liturgy (WORK of the people). How can you hold such contempt for the worshippers?

Worship seems to imply WORK, not just nose bleed section theology. Your music ministers have to WORK to make liturgy happen. It isn't alwasy about the priest. I thought that Byzantines believed in using all their senses during worship, not just participate in cerebrial worship.

Ed

Me too. The lost little ones are always in your heart and soul.

Dear Ed,
Thanks for your post, of which I agree heartily. I think what I miss most of our beloved Ruthenian Recension is the rhythm of prayer we were able to slip into. After six months, I am not able to find that rhythm with this Revised, made-up,chopped-up Liturgy. There are so many flat parts to the Liturgy,whether it be wording or music that no amount of practice will fix. It's just a bad translation.

Byzantine Christians are not missal thumpers, nor should they be. Missals and pews are so foreign to their worship. Throw out those Protestant innovations and hire (and pay) good singers. If the illiterates of yore knew their worship well, what is holding youns back in todays' age of high tech?

Ed

Ed-

the 1964 English translation reads:

"For our civil authorities and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord."

2007 translation:

"For our government and for all in the service of our country, let us pray to the Lord." (thank you Fr Serge for pointing out my sloppy typo.)

English translation of Greek or C-S:

"For the Emperor/King and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord."

I do not perceive the redundancy... "Government" includes all branches of government-executive, legislative, and judicial- not just Emperor/King (although at one time the Emperor/king did embody the sole governing power.) "Civil authorities" denotes the non-military power of the State that enforces law and order (eg, police, state troopers, FBI). The term "for all in the service of our country," is more (dare I use the word) inclusive. In addition to the military, we should include in our prayer the state troopers, police officers, firefighters, DEA etc. Do we add petitions or adapt those in existence to reflect our particular situation? I don't see this as any disdain for the military. Adaptation has a precedence. We pray "for those who travel by sea, air, and land,.." I doubt air travel was contemplated by the Church before the 20th Century.

Dear Deacon John,

It is obvious that a special and more specific intention for the *armed forces* was not desired. Why not government, those who serve the country, AND the armed forces? The anti-military position is even taken by your church leaders.

So far, no one, including Father David Petras, has taken liberty to defend the choice for *children* of God in the Beatitudes, purposely changing the content of Scriptures for ideology, not theology. He has yet to reply with a theological explanation of why the change in Scripture. Do you think the debunking of *sons* of God is from the same vein as ridding of the *armed forces*? I believe it is the last gasp of the Sixties trying to *change* the world.

Still, your perception doesn't explain why your church got rid of the special intention for the *armed forces*. I presented my theory above.

Ed Hashinsky

Dear Deacon John or Father David,

Since we are now dealing with the theology of the Liturgy, what is the theology behind taking out the word mankind and replacing it with inclusive language. Please, let's just stick to theology. I truly want to understand why these words were theologically incorrect.

Maybe one of the Uniontown sisters can chime in here? The Otpust is riddled with inclusive language.

The sisters of Holy Theophany monastery would never want that inclusive language. Is it any surprise that no one wants to join the order?

"So far, no one, including Father David Petras, has taken liberty to defend the choice for *children* of God in the Beatitudes, purposely changing the content of Scriptures for ideology, not theology. He has yet to reply with a theological explanation of why the change in Scripture. Do you think the debunking of *sons* of God is from the same vein as ridding of the *armed forces*? I believe it is the last gasp of the Sixties trying to *change* the world."

Mr. Ed Hash:

If you will check out the "Foreward" to "The Divine Liturgies of Our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great," you will see that it states that "in general, translations of bibical quotes and allusions have been guided by The New American Bible (1970-1991)..."

So, if you look at the version of The New American Bible (revised in 1986) of the Beatitudes (St. Matthew 5:1-12), you will find an identical text to that given in "The Divine Liturgies" book published by the Byzantine Catholic Church. The N.A.B. is the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Is this the same group of sisters who re-affiliated themselves with another church?
Ed

I have a copy of the New American Bible and my text has:

"Blest too the peacemakers; they shall be called sons of God."

My copy is from 1983. They must have altered it in 1986.

What ancient manuscript has *children* of God? Please point it out.

Ed

The Catholic bishops might have adopted inclusive language in 1986, but the ancient manuscripts do NOT have *children*, namely...

Codex Vaticanus (4th C)
Codex Sinaiticus (4th C)
Codex Ephraem Rescriptus (5th C)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th/6th C)

I believe these are good sources. These are not translations; these are what contemporary translations are based on.

The 1986 text you speak about was the second version of the NAB which adopted inclusive language for the New Testament. So this goes with what was adopted by your church for worship too.

Ed

Which one? 1970? 1986? 1991? 2000? The late Pope John Paul II rejected the 1991 version in 1994 because of inclusive language. What part of his rejection did you not understand? Do you accept what the Pope rejected?

Why is the *sons of God* theology so hard to digest in the Byzantine Catholic Church? Is feminism so predominant that one can no longer appreciate ancient understandings of son-ship? I would like to know from you the *theology* of sonship rightfully understood from Matthew's Beatitudes in 5:9, not what bishops intended with a translation of their biblical text or one's worship. I want to know the theology as the author might have meant it.

Ed

Stephanie,

You mean your parish didn't sing the new MCI para-litugical Theophany Hymn? I guess it must be Hellenic usage!

http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/TheophanyDivineLiturgy.pdf

Ung

Luckily, I was late for church on Sunday. I'm not usually, but I guess the Lord didn't want to set my hair on fire that morning. Though, there would have been water to put the fire out I suppose. : )

Are you serious? This is awful. How about the old...At your Baptism in the Jordan... Hey it works great for the Melkites!

Stephanie I have come to love your comments on the RDL. You seem to say everything I think!
Annie

They were Ruthenian and now they are Romanian Catholic. They are under Bishop John Michael in Ohio. They are in Washington.

I thank Father David for his post. I will first note that while I continue to disagree with him on many issues regarding the Revised Divine Liturgy (RDL) I acknowledge and respect his love for the Lord and dedication to His Church.


I can sort of agree with Father David on this. Those who support the idea of reform and agree with the style guide of politically-correct gender neutral language will tend to evaluate the Revised Divine Liturgy favorably. While it has not been received well in the vast majority of parishes (Father David himself used the term “crisis” just a few months back in speaking of the state of our Church regarding the RDL) whether it is received well or not is not the sole criteria for evaluation. We know that many in our Church were very happy with Stations of the Cross and other such latinizations. That they were received well does not mean they were acceptable. The main criteria for evaluation of the RDL should be authenticity and faithfulness to the liturgical tradition we share with others.


This issue has actually been discussed at great length.

First, the anaphora is most certainly the core of the Liturgy. Everyone should be familiar with it, know it and understand it. All are agreed on that point and this has never been an issue.

The issue is whether the praying of the Anaphora at the Divine Liturgy is the appropriate vehicle for the education (by hearing) of the faithful. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has commented in a number of places and noted that the experiment in the Latin Church (that is now being imitated in our Church) is not working. In his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy” he makes clear that “in no sense does the whole Canon have to be said out loud” and speaks about how the German Liturgists say that this custom of praying the Anaphora out loud in the Latin Church has lead to a “crisis”. He concludes about how “silence might be best” and how the development of the quiet Anaphora was no accident. Given that the Latins note such problem with the custom we are now imitating it should be expected that the same problems will arise in our Church. That is all the more reason for liberty, the liberty of the individual priest to pray these prayers quietly or aloud as he desires. Surely the Holy Spirit can be trusted to lead.

Elsewhere, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks about how reorienting the Liturgy to be about the education of man only impedes the making present of his nearness and does not foster the faith because God is no longer the only reason for the celebration.


I again recommend Father Keleher’s excellent book . The shape of the Liturgy is intricately tied to the ability of the Liturgy to make present God’s nearness because by “setting aside all earthly cares” (including purposeful education through the transmission of information) can we participate in the Divine Light. Paying attention to the shape of the Liturgy IS paying attention to the theology of the Liturgy. People are not formed by hearing the words of the Anaphora pronounced out loud by the priest. They are formed by participating in the Divine Light being made present by the praying of the prayers.


If Father David means to accuse me of liturgical fundamentalism I stand in good company. Our own bishops in Europe, together with Patriarch Cardinal Husar and the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church have made clear that the 1942 standard is normative for their Churches and directed all to be familiar with it and to follow it. Does Father David consider Patriarch Husar a liturgical fundamentalist? How about Bishop Milan Shashik? I hope not. But I most certainly do stand with them in keeping the standard, and will again state that should changes be admitted that all work together to accomplish them. I also stand with our Orthodox brethren who hold the Ruthenian, Russian and Greek standards – all of which very close in structure if you compare them to the Pittsburgh RDL. No, it seems clear that Father David’s ideas – which are similar to those in the Latin Church that were popular in some circles after Vatican II – are the ones outside the mainstream. They are, in fact, being rejected by the Latin Church.


When actual parish practice does not rise to the standard one does not lower the standard, unless the standard has been shown to be inauthentic and in need of reform. Should one suspect that the standard is in need of reform then one should work with all who hold that standard in common to accomplish change.


Father David’s saying that the 2007 Revision (it is not a translation but a revision) has resulted in many parishes coming closer to an authentic Byzantine tradition is misleading. The Revised Divine Liturgy contains no elements that are more authentic to the authentic Byzantine (Ruthenian) liturgical tradition than does the 1942 Church Slavonic edition or the 1964 English translation. It was not necessary to modify the 1942/1964 standard to raise the level of celebration in our parishes. Had the bishops raised the level through example, education and encouragement there would have been no crisis and over an appropriate period of time the standard could have been raised to very close to the 1942 standard without hurting so many of the faithful and clergy.

In his last words Father David seems to be suggesting that the 1942 Ruthenian recension is inauthentic Christian worship. I hope that is just a clumsy choice of words because the 1942 Ruthenian recension is shared by millions of others, and is very close to that of the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. I really hope that Father David is not suggesting that the Divine Liturgy as celebrated in those Churches is inauthentic!

It is a new day in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church. We have had one bishop retire, another soon moves to take his place, and a third one will soon be consecrated. I pray that the new Council of Hierarchs will, as their first act, rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy, declare the official 1942 books as normative for our Church, restore the 1964 translation to common usage, and then direct the preparation of an update to the 1964 translation (one that respects what has been memorized and corrects only what is absolutely necessary). Then, in the future, we can work together with our brethren in the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) to eventually prepare a common translation.

Hello from Florida everyone... I just read through all four pages so far of this topic, and feel compelled to add a few comments...
Marilyn likes the new book -- and Stephanie says why "monkey with " the liturgy... what exactly are our alternatives?
As a Christian, practicing my religion as a Byzantine Catholic, originally from Pittsburgh and now under the jurisdiction of the Passaic Eparchy, and as a cantor ( for about 45 of my 60 years so far) -- and, as a member of All Saints Parish, in Ft. Myers -- I have been learning the RDL along with everyone else in our parish. Liturgy ( and cantoring ) is "work", as someone else mentioned. We are not Orthodox, here in Florida; we are a mixture of Pittsburgh, Parma, and Passaic Byzantine Catholics, and we are "working" at our lturgical celebrations. We are not necessarily "missal thumpers."
I do not think that hiring and/or paying singers is the answer to our present confusion. I do believe that authentic Liturgy -- work of the people -- is about praying.
Maybe the "illiterates of yore" had a little more faith than we do. I don't think they looked at liturgical activities as entertainment -- it was their education and instruction in the scripture and our faith. I consider myself fortunate -- I grew up in a Byzantine Grade School, in a Byzantine church with a great Iconostas screen. Every Holy Day, Fr. Method Royko, O.S.B., my pastor then, preached to us about the Holy Day as it was depicted on the Icon screen or the tetropod -- That's what I remember most about those days, not whether or not the cantor was singing on key. I believe that is part of the Theology of the Liturgy.
So, what should I do now?
IF, as a cantor, I try to follow the direction of my pastor and the hierarchs and sing the Revised Liturgy, then I am branded a "revisionist." IF I do not sing it, what is there to take its place? Do I dig out our old pew books, or borrow from the Greek Orthodox church up the street from me, or ask ther local band from the big Baptist Church up the way to come sing with me?
Seems to me we have spent a lot of time, like Martha in the gospel, worrying about the procedures, and rubrics, complaining about the lack of help -- instead of choosing the "better part" -- listening to the Word. Let us pray to the Lord -- Lord, have mercy!

Andy Kovaly

We're not allowed to sing the traditional Ruthenian para-liturgigal hymns because they say they are a Latinization. So instead, we are to sing newly-created hymns using RC music? Am I missing something here?

Oh come all ye Herald Angels to the Jordan on this Holy Night! (Hey, that's a new hymn we can sing! )

Give me a break!

U-C


http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/TheophanyDivineLiturgy.pdf

Ung [/quote]

Ed, who knows, you may be right, they may have been quietly "dissing" the armed forces . . . but given the other changes of wording, it's more likely they wanted to ensure the rest of the people who are willing to put themselves in harms way for us are included as well. Not all of them wear a uniform.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw many others in service to our country who deserve our prayers and God's blessings as much as those who wore a military uniform. Having spent the last 20 years "in the service of our country," (USAF), I'm not offended by this change; I'm proud that my church recognizes the rest.

Dave

From what I understand, your church was full of Marthaites ("We have to do it THIS way do be considered real Catholics") when it came to Latinization, but Marianists ("let's listen and obey") when it came to restoration. Youns seem to be fearful of who you really are.

My aunt says that in the past your bishops were the ones responsible for providing each community with a cantor who was educated and well trained. My Baptist neighbor is a music minister in her church and gets paid at least $30,000/year for her ministerial leadership. They have darn good music and full participation. Their worship on Sundays lasts at least 3 hours! Your church only makes demands. This is a shame.

Ed

Ed -- Thank you. You seem to make a lot of potent observations!
You say "your church" -- I take it then you are not Byzantine Catholic. You really did peg our people with your "youns seem to be fearful of who you really are..." I remember stories from my parents about the old country. Over there, it didn't seem to matter what you called us: Rusyn, Rusin, Ruthenian, Check, Slovak, -- we seemed to answer to whoever was in power.
Either we were fearful, then, too, about who we are -- or maybe we were (and are ) pretty good, since everyone wants a piece of us, and claims us as their own!
Bishops training cantors was a little before my time -- I remember a cantor at our church who had a home provided by the church, and I guess a paycheck. Since I have been cantoring, I have yet to meet a cantor who got rich, or even made a living, cantoring.

Wow Ed,

There is simply no end to your oft-damning pontification and insight into/about our(/your aunt's) church.

How did you become so very interested in your aunt's church?

How about Cardinal Francis Arinze? It should take him all of five minutes to find all the violations of the Vatican directive Liturgiam Authenticam.

The alternative is to demand an accurate translation and keep demanding it until we get it. Rome has rejected gender-neutral language. It is wrong to quietly accept the wrong-doings of the bishops. If we unite in our opposition to the wrongness of the revision it will not last.

We talk alot. I am allowed to take an interest in her church, right? She takes great interest in my life too. I hope freedom of speech is protected here. Since i am an active Christian, she considers me a person to vent on. She didn't start venting until recently. The main issue is your new worship hymnal. There is no end with her about it. Hardly anyone uses it.

I am also in much dialogue with my Jewish friends about their religion too, but I have no reason to write my questions here.

I don't pontificate. I ask a lot of questions that mostly go unanswered. I am still waiting for Father David Petras to give a theological explanation to *children* of God being in the Beatitudes. It is funny that many Catholics make a big thing about Protestants changing the Scripture, but remain silent when their own bishops alter it. Your observations would be helpful in helping me to understand why Catholics can change the words of Scripure, but not others. As I have posted, there are NO ancient manuscripts - even up to my 1983 copy of the NAB that has *children* of God in Matthew 5:9. Maybe you can encourage the professor of the seminary to explain why? It seems to me that your recent and current Pope had/has issues with such adulterations of Scripture in the name of inclusive language too. Do you consider their concerns and instructions *oft-daming pontifications*? If Byzantine *Catholics* really do believe in the Pope, then it would behoove youns to listen to him and be mindful of his ... pontifications. Those are the only ones that count. Mine are just observations similar to many who actually worship in your churches who are also edged like my dear aunt.

Ed Hashinsky

Dear Father David,

In addition to my question about *children* of God being in the Beatitudes, I would like to ask another question.

Why do you think that people's evaluation is solely determined by their detestation? Might it be the other way around, that their detestation arises from their evaluation? You are of the opionion that the laity do not have critical skills to make an honest evaluation, hence the attidude that they are all biased by their subjective detestations. This attitude is simply elitist. Sure, not everyone is a full-time liturgist, but I would think that most DO worship at your liturgies. THIS, not academia, makes them true theologians. An Orthodox monk once told me that a true theologian was one who prays. So, if those who pray voice their opinion, it does count. The *little* people can, at times, make very good evaluations. If they DO find something amiss, they can detest it if it is not a good thing.

Ed

While it has been mentioned that the Liturgy for the Ruthenians existed before the Ruthenian Recension, that is what is now normative. Anything which does not conform to the Ruthenian Recension, is an aberration. However, unity with Rome is a characteristic mark of our little Church. If we do not take that seriously with respect to our Liturgy, there is really no reason for us to exist as an autonomous Church other than perhaps to maintain some cultural attachment to our ancestral heritage.

As to the translation itself, one must ask the question, "What experts examined the 'development" of the English language?" It is indeed the secular trend to refuse to use words like men and mankind. The issues is whether this is a true organic development of the language. An expert in this area, Fr. Mankowski, argues quite forcefully that it is not. While we can make a distinction between horizontal and vertical language, is such a distinction valid? Is it valid for the East, which tends not to see a clear distinction between the natural and supernatural order, in the same manner of the West?

The larger overall question is, "Should we allow the secular order to define the liturgical translation?" Even more broadly, "Should we allow the secular order to define us at all- in our actions, in our moral life or in the language which we use?"

St. Paul answers this question quite clearly. "Do not conform yourselves to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind."

The Administrator quotes Father David as follows:


Well, the Churches which were expected to receive and observe the Ruthenian Recension certainly did not come into existence in 1942, and nobody is claiming the contrary.

But the very expression "Ruthenian Recension" was unheard-of prior to the process - begun in the nineteen-thirties - which resulted in the publications so categorized by the Holy See. In terms of published service-books, the Ruthenian Recension really did not exist until the early nineteen-forties, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. This is not a matter of "fundamental literalism", it is a matter of accuracy.

Father David certainly does not accuse me of ignoring authentic sources prior to 1942 - he knows full well that I was the prime mover in the publication of the 1639 Kyiv Leitourgiarion of St Peter (Mohyla), and he may be aware that I am heavily involved in producing a facsimile edition of a manuscript Archieraticon from L'viv, produced in 1632 and used by St Peter (Mohyla) as well as others.

But perhaps I should clarify a point. I fully agree with and believe the principle that the "Ruthenian" tradition does not live behind a sort of Great Wall of Ruthenia; it is simply one variant (among many) of the liturgical tradition which originates in Constantinople, and especially in the diaspora, there is no particular reason to attempt to prevent these variations from cross-fertilizing one another. Again, that is hardly a position of fundamentalist literalism.

Others as well as myself have the impression that at least some of the supporters of the Pittsburgh revised version of the "Ruthenian Recension" is yet another attempt to invent a "Byzantine-Ruthenian" liturgical usage which will barricade any Church which uses it against possible influence from other Greek-Catholics, let alone other Orthodox. But who, then, is the fundamentalist literalist?

Fr. Serge

Is this Pauline rule the one followed in the liturgical translation this entire forum is about?

The Greek makes a distinction between *sons* and *children*. Children of God is given in the Bible but NOT in the Beatitudes. Peacemakers are *sons* of God. Peacemakers inherit sonship, a status that is special. This theology is lost when translators substitute *children* in its place just to be egalitarian. It is not about being equal amongst men; it is about being adopted as *sons* of God - partakers of the divine nature. The doctrine of Theosis doesn't stand a chance when sonship is debunked in favor of feminist ideas of egalitarianism and 60-ish notions of let's get along - just so *let's get along* means following liberal social agendas. I question what is meant by *unity* with Rome when those in unity with Rome don't even listen to their own Pope! It is lip service Catholicism with a touch of embarassment Orthodoxy. Even the word *Orthodox* wasn't re-instated in the Byzantine Catholic race to restoration. This is not a restoration, but a reformation. When the ideas of reform justify adulterating Scripture, one's church gets into trouble. From my talks with my lovely aunt, it seems that there are lobbyists who have infiltrated the thinking and decision-making circles with an agenda to be executed. What better time to DO IT then now. Every church community is seeing the Sixties generation having their last few years of leadership. The lobbyists and their agendas have so little time left before true reform occurs and there is a call to orthodoxy. It's scramble time now to get a big foothold in your church's door where it will become more difficult to get rid of. What voices are out there that can rally the spiritual troops to true reform and orthodoxy? Our Lord's voice is all that is left in the Wilderness. This unfortunate circumstance is not something that is monopolized only by Byzantine Catholics. Feminist and ef-feminist Christianity has made men into a-religionists. GOLF (Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden) becomes their new church. Fishing bring better peace and harmony with God's nature. How many more sermons of fluff and ilk?

OK. I got way off tangent. But my reason is because I see this happening in other Christian communities too. One of my Lutheran friends is experiencing something similar. So now I get phone calls from him. Why me, Lord?

Ed

I believe the armed forces are specially mentioned three times during our liturgy. Once in the litany of peace, once in the great entrance and once during the silent prayers said by the priest. I can't imagine why they would be removed, nor do I understand the issue with silent prayers. I will be the first to admit there is much I don't understand though.

[/quote]

I always said that "Adeste Fideles" was really a Ruthenian tune co-opted by the English!

Honestly though, I did not look at the propers on the MCI website as I was not attending my Greek Catholic church on that day. If it was so necessary to have a para-liturgical hymn to sing, couldn't it have been a Ruthenian carol re-written with Theophany oriented words???

I second, "Give me a break!"

John K

I always said that "Adeste Fideles" was really a Ruthenian tune co-opted by the English!

Honestly though, I did not look at the propers on the MCI website as I was not attending my Greek Catholic church on that day. If it was so necessary to have a para-liturgical hymn to sing, couldn't it have been a Ruthenian carol re-written with Theophany oriented words???

I second, "Give me a break!"

John K [/quote]

...unless you're Starij Kalendarist'and you are still singing:

Prijdite vsi virnii, veselo praznujme,
Prijdite, prijdite v Viflejem.
Uvidim Carja, Anhelov Rozdenno,
Prijdite poklonimsja(3) Hospodevi.
(parish carol hand-out c.1940)

Christos Razhdajet'sja!

Ung

Ung--

We sing "O Come all Ye Faithful" and "Silent Night" in my parish on Christmas Eve in both English and Slavonic, during caroling before the Liturgy. But that's the only time that I can think of that we sing or have sung any Western hymns, songs, or carols.

I still would like to know what gives. Was this approved by the hierarchs?

John K

Inclusiveness by using less precise terminology seems to be part of the translation guide for the Revised Divine Liturgy. We have the very inclusive and exacting “man” and “mankind” replaced with the ambiguous and potentially exclusive “us” and “all of us”. And here we have a more exacting parallel to the Slavonic and Greek texts replaced with a more ambiguous and potentially exclusive phrase from the RDL above. If the military are included then say so. Father Deacon John notes correctly that the police, firemen, FBI and others were already included in the term "civil authorities". There was no need to change the petition as it was already inclusive. [The parallel here would have been if "for those who travel by sea and land" were changed to "for those who travel" (omitting the specific methods of travel rather then adding "air").]


Rewording the petition to make a point and considering the context of the Vatican II document we can see how appropriate it is to pray for our armed forces by name:

For our armed forces, the agents of our security and freedom, that they may serve our country with honor, and that they may make a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy!

An astute observation. I have given copies of the new RDL to some local Orthodox clergy with whom I'm friendly. The reaction was not particularly good. One priest made a comment to the effect of: "why are we so concerned with gender"? It's as if those 1996 liturgical prescriptions promulgated by the Congregation for Eastern Churches are something which can be ignored (i.e., the part which says that Catholic Eastern Churches should do nothing liturgically which will alienate their sister Eastern Churches which are not in full communion with the Church of Rome). Just my "two cents".

Dn. Robert

Amen! I'll go one step further:

To alienate from Sister Churches that are IN communion with Rome!

God bless,

Gordo

That is true! The Melkites I know think this is awful! It is making all the Greek Catholics look stupid!

Just to throw in my 2 cents... For He is gracious and loves US ALL.... This sounds like something from a bad new mass. Ugh!

I'm from the South... we say "And loves us, Y'all!"

Gordo

Maybe they could put that in the new book to be sensitive to the southern folks! Why should they only be sensitive to feminists...I mean women!

Yes - pretty soon every social identity group will be making demands...

I do not understand this comment. Are you saying that the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics should seek the evaluation from someone who is outside your Church such as "other Eastern Catholics", "Roman Catholics", or "protestants"?!?

All groups will be considered except people like me who want to do what Pope John Paul II had in mind for the eastern Catholics. traditional women don't count anymore!

I am a bad typist.

"For God is good and loves all men, and additionally the grammatically impaired who are unable to recognize that this includes them."

But I'm not sure the tone will fit that much

hawk

It seems that objectivity was lacking in its publication. An outside observor means anyone but those who are forced to use it. Non-expert church members are not only incapable of making an honest evaluation, but they also have great difficulty in remaining objective. simply put, it is an attitude that the *little* people are incapable of thinking for themselves. I can't believe that your own church thinks of youns this way. This in itself is a sign of a deeper problem that goes beyond your worship. Your church does, indeed, need reform. And its not another hymn book that will do the trick.

Ed

That has already been accomplished with Fr. Serge's review. For the record, Fr. Serge is not a member of the "Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church of America".

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Ung

I've read a lot of it. Very good stuff. I learned alot.

Was Father Serge's book requested by them as an outside observer?

Ed

Once the RDL was unveiled at the clergy conventions, a group of concerned clergy appealed to Fr. Serge and his expertise in liturgics to dismantle yet another version of our beloved Ruthenian Recension.

I've been told that since the RDL was done in secret, it only added to the trouble because the clergy felt they had no voice with their own Bishops. Fr. Serge gave the clergy a voice -- albeit a voice the Bishops were not willing to listen to. Not then, not today, not ever, at least where this revision stands.

If I have this incorrect, I hope a member of the clergy will step-up and correct me.

If you were close I would buy you a drink! Maybe I should write the bishop and tell him he was insensitive to bad typists when he wrote the new liturgy!

I'm still waiting for Fr. David to explain why inclusive language was needed. Are the Orthodox wrong for not using it?

I hope not.

It ain't gonna happen. If it really was about theology then the good Father would have answered my question from almost a year ago about using *childrern* instead of *sons* of God in the Beatitudes.

I would suggest that your church ask the Orthodox to be that *outside* observer.

Any critical study would have to include the silent movers in this. Like anything off-kilt, one has to investigate the prime movers of these changes. It lies deeper that mere word changes to be more upbeat. Someone is behind it and that someone has not made himself (or herself) known. These changes, especially the adulterationi of Scripture of the sake of ???, are being pushed from elsewhere and those who did the deeds are not talking. Until the prime movers are identified and challenged, you will continue to pull hair out. There will be no answers because there ares none.

Ed

Glad to know that my book is appreciated; thank you! A small clarification:

It is correct that several specific clergy (and faithful) of the Pittsburgh Metropolia appealed to me to write the book. However, this was not any organized "group of clergy" - and indeed could not have been, since no such fellowship seems to be permitted to exist.

The response to the book at least demonstrates one important point: it is false to assume that lay people don't care, or are not seriously interested, in liturgical matters. First those who produced the Novus Ordo produced and imposed their contrived liturgy on the Latin Church, basing themselves on this fallacious assumption; now the same thing, mutatis mutandis, has been done to the US Ruthenians. How many more such episodes must we live through before the bureaucrats realize that priests, deacons, and faithful are not to be treated like mushrooms?

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge-

who are these bureaucrats?

I do not think they would be pleased with the Orthodox evaluation of the RDL.

Perhaps you should read this first before you make this "guess" -- http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/liturgical_practices.htm

You will see that many (if not most) of Fr Schmemman's suggestions are included in the Ruthenian DL. For example, Schmemann argues that it may be profitable to eliminate the two little litanies after the Great Litany so that the priest can pray the corporate prayer aloud. This the DL does. Etc.

Among the many excellent authorities assembled by Fr Schmemman is the quote from Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov (1864):

For such people the order of worship with which they
are familiar is the original and unchanging order. Why?
Because they wholly ignore the history of Church life
and, obsessed with themselves, cherish only that which
they know. History clearly shows that in liturgical matters
the Church dealt with reasonable freedom: she adopted
new forms when she saw that the old arrangements were
not altogether useful and there was need for a change....
Here, as in other matters, she neither accepted the rule of
those who, according to apostolic institutions, are to be
disciples and not teachers, nor did she allow herself to go
into deep sleeping but paid great attention to the needs of
the time and the demands of souls. ...


I also love these insights:

By all means, let's make an artificial barrier and become different from our other brethren using the Ruthenian Recension.
Didn't some quote Bishop Andrew Pataki saying we need our liturgy to be deliberately different from our Orthodox brthren?

Yes, let's dare to be different!

Ung

It is sad that we cannot ask Fr Schememman his evaluation of the RDL. I am "guessing" on nothing. I can only go by those Orthodox priests that I have already engaged on the subject. None of them were supportive of the majority of the work done by the Ruthenian Catholic reformers as set forth in the RDL.

Perhaps you are "guessing" that Fr Schmemman would approve of the RDL? I would certainly not venture to make that "guess".

Did Fr Schememman support sweeping mandates on music and word translations without concern for organic development?

Did Fr Schmemman support sweeping Liturgical reform in secrecy?

Was Fr Schmemman a supporter of gender-neutral language?

These are all questions to ponder.




Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind!

bureaucreatus incognitus, the unknown bureacrat, otherwise an elusive person(s) not likely to be identified.

This is a useful quote.

As much as they love the Lord and had intentions to do what is good those bishops who promulgated the Revised Divine Liturgy ignored the history of Church life; that is the development and incredible and wonderful sculpting of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. It was through the use of liberty that the Holy Spirit has sculpted the Divine Liturgy through the centuries. Most often the practice in the Christian East was to see the development occur in one generation and then to see a later generation finally admit changes to the liturgical books. A very easy to see example today is the rapid spread of the proclamation of the Resurrection Gospel at the doors of the church at Pascha Matins. It started with the Greeks and, after a century or so, has been added to their liturgical books. It can now be found among the Slavs but is not yet in their liturgical books. No rush. No hurry. No mandates. No need to hurt people to accomplish change. Let the Spirit work. In the current Revision it seems clear that those who prepared it might be obsessed copying the worst of the post-Vatican II reforms that were popular in some circles of liturgists.

Has anyone outside the handful in the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh who actually support the Revision deemed the ‘received’ tradition as an old arrangement that does not work and is so altogether un-useful that it must be prohibited? I think not. Not a single other Byzantine Church (Catholic or Orthodox) has prohibited the full, received Liturgy in favor of a Liturgy similar to the Revised Liturgy. And, I will note, the differences between the Ruthenian, Russian, and Greek recensions are miniscule when comparing any of them to the Revised Divine Liturgy. The Divine Liturgy at the Melkite parish I currently worship at is far closer to the official Ruthenian recension and the rest of Orthodoxy than is the RDL.

As to paying attention to the ‘needs of the times and the demands of souls’, can anyone actually argue that it is good for the faithful to force them to undergo mandatory change, change that has been accomplished with brute force instead of accomplishing it gently over the period of a decade or a generation? Even if one puts aside the content of the Revision one can see that the way the change was mandated has been harmful to souls. An incredible amount of people have been hurt. Our Church has a lot of elderly. Probably 50% are over 60. How does brute force in ordering them to re-learn everything they have memorized (Liturgy, texts and music) after praying them over a lifetime serve the needs of their souls?

It seems to me that the better way to accomplish change would be to give someone like Father David a parish in which to experiment. And then, after 20 or 30 years should the changes prove to be useful and have been demonstrated to build up the Church of God (by growing the parish), to encourage other clergy to imitate the example. Instead we have – a year later – priests and laymen complaining actively about a Revision they didn’t want, didn’t ask for, and don’t like shoved down their throats through demands of obedience. This is in reality far worse than anything done by Bishop Elko or anything else in our history. [The reality here is that the changes in Parma in the mid 1980s an in Passaic in the mid-1990s have never been accepted, and here in Passaic both clergy and faithful have been praying that the next bishop will allow our own official Ruthenian Liturgy (certainly something closer to it with reasonable liberty), for it is at the essence of who we are.]


This quote is also useful. Clearly, the clergy and laymen are in many places accustomed to a much abbreviated Divine Liturgy, lack of other Divine Services such as Vespers and Matins, assorted Latinizations and etc. But can anyone argue that the ‘received’ liturgical tradition as given in the official Ruthenian recension is not part of the genuine liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy? The problem here is that our Church does not cannot pretend to know our liturgical tradition. This is why the Liturgical Instruction was clear in section 18 to state: “The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating.” It is precisely that our authentic ‘received’ tradition will appear as “‘new’ and even ‘revolutionary’” to many that we need to proceed carefully over a generation to restore it. It is absolutely wrong to mandate anything else.


This is another useful quote. The Revised Divine Liturgy has been mandated for, among other reasons, the desire to obtain perfect liturgical unity. Even to the point of prohibiting parishes from taking the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy promulgated by Rome (which would include the fuller versions of antiphons or the traditional litanies and all the correct rubrics). Even to the point of prohibiting the people from singing local melodies that stem back for generations. Such mandates for unity are “both useless and harmful.” Liturgical unity is always that of a general structure. For us, the standard of unity is the official Ruthenian Liturgical Books. We share that standard with other Byzantines – both Catholic and Orthodox. Yet within that standard there is a great deal of liberty. This parish might prefer to do the Typical Psalms and the Beatitudes more then the ‘Sunday’ antiphons. That parish might have a favorite melody for the Cherubic Hymn at Christmastime. A cantor in the American Southwest might have composed melodies that appeal to the parishioners who come from Hispanic ethnic background. “It is simply dangerous- spiritually and pastorally- to make our people believe that uniformity in all practices is the touchstone and essence of Orthodoxy; dangerous because they already seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the externals at the expense of meaning.”

Father Deacon asks me:


Well, I am certainly not about to provide a list of names! However, I will offer a few signs of such bureaucrats:

a) those who use on adults the line "because I (we) say so, that's why!"

b) those who ignore the principle that in making changes to such intimate matters as how people worship, one must be prepared to exercise great patience until people are genuinely ready and enthusiastic for the desired change. It is better to wait longer, than to force the pace.

c) those who rest upon their own asserted "authority", rather than providing authentic sources available to all (or at least to those who are able to read the relevant languages).


All this and more should not be read to indicate that such behaviour is unique to any one jurisdiction - unfortunately, it is amazingly wide-spread. On the positive side, though, it's remarkable how resistant the various Churches of the Constantinopolitan tradition are to the blandishments of would-be reformers. I suspect that the Russians learned their lesson from the disaster of the seventeenth century, and the Greeks learned a similar lesson from the twentieth-century calendar disaster.

Hope that sheds some light on the question.

Fr. Serge

As Prof. Thompson has correctly noted above, the RDL for the beatitudes is just using the current NAB translation of the bible: hence "children of God". Given the avowed use of PC-correct gender language in the RDL, this NAB translation fits in nicely.

For those who have a problem with the RDL implementation of PC-correct gender language, finding the same in the NAB - a translation of sacred scripture, the inerrant word of God in text - expands the depth of the problem significantly.

Fr. David correctly notes:



Is there a theology of sonship in the liturgy? In the beatitudes? In Matthew's Gospel? In scripture?

If yes, then "children of God" for "uioi theou" is reprehensible.

One finds, for instance, also in the same NAB Gal.4:4&7 that "God sent his Son (uios) ... so you are a ... [drum roll] ... child (uios)." What? I think not. God sent his Son that we might become sons. We are all "Filii in Filio," sons in the Son as Emil Mersch popularized it so well.

But somehow the translator is allowed to slap the hand of God who writes "uios (son)" but has it "corrected" to child (To what purpose, "child" makes no sense in Gal 4:7 passim?). And the result robs theology of its content, and is the literary equivalent of turning gold into lead.


Dn. Anthony

It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

Thank you for your reply.
Ed

You said it, my friend!

Alexandr

It is common practice by the revisionists to justify the RDL with the minority of examples in the Orthodox church. One out of a hundred that don't celebrate Vespers, much like 90%+ of all BCA parishes, is held up as the example and excuse. Any deviation from Tradition is used as a crutch and the example. I suppose that those who wish for secularism to be rampant in the church are at least consistent in one aspect, they celebrate the secular practice of celebrating and upholding the lowest common denominator.

The infamous 'Paris School renovationist' is another example of this practice. The majority of Orthodox theologians and practices (current and Traditional) are ignored because they don't fit the mold that the revisionists wish to jam down the throat of the faithful.

Monomakh

Good point. That has also been the methodology of Modernism in Theology (now, there's an oxymoron-kind of like "dry water") since the days of Tyrell and Loisy in the late 19th/early 20th century Latin Church. One dissenting opinion is published, and then there are positive reviews of those opinions by other dissenters (all of whom are in the minority). They ignore the orthodox position of the Church, and strive to create a semblance of "consensus".

Dn. Robert

Note to PrJ: I am not referring to you, but to a process.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Instead of engaging in pointless name-calling, perhaps you could enlighten us by offering a critical evaluation of the writings of + Father Schmemann, of blessed memory? What exactly makes his rhetoric "hollow" -- aside from the fact that you and the folks at CTOS say so?

Looking forward to your response.

In Christ,
Theophilos

This link probably encapsulates some of the criticisms of Fr. Schmemann.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

These are good points.

Let's suppose that it was not the liturgy that was being translated into English but suppose it were Homer--the Iliad or the Odyssey. Let us suppose that words were changed or dropped as they have been in the RDL and yes the NAB. Would you feel cheated? Now you would not be getting Homer, but something different.

The argument is, however, that we need Homer to speak to the modern world in language which it can understand. And Homer was, well-- sexist. But who would dare change Homer? Perhaps Homer isn't relevant to the modern man--but no honest scholar would say that he ought to be changed. One might disagree with him, despise him or even think his view of the world was rather absurd, but change his classical works---Never!

Now let's suppose the author is not Homer but John Chrysostom or the Fathers of the Nicea or God Himself through his inspired writers. Who would be so presumptious to tinker with their words? Isn't the proper attitude to honor the Fathers? Indeed isn't it even a commandment? There appears to be, despite the well-meaning intentions, a lack of due reverence which even the unbelievers have for those whom they consider the great authors of antiquity.

And what is there to lose? Perhaps everything -- an insight into reality that might actually provide a way out of the darkness for modern man who is hell bent on losing one of his greatest gifts - his mind--his ability to reason--his ability to see the truth about reality, about creation, about God Himself; about the relationship he too might have one day with this Creator - one of an adopted son - an heir to the kingdom of God -- a relationship which is available to all men: male or female, slave or free.

Further to the previous post - every few years someone or other comes along and attempts to rewrite Shakespeare in modern English. None of these rewrites ever really catches on; people want to read Shakespeare itself in the original late Elizabethan and early Jacobean English. There are several theatres devoted largely or even exclusively to performances of Shakespeare's places; tickets are always in demand.

Fr. Serge

In case I missed it, did the good Father David Petras give a theological explanation of them using *children* of God in place of *sons* of God in the Beatitudes? Please direct me where on the forums he might have given such a theological explanation.

Ed Hashinsky

Along the same lines, about a year ago, my daughter and I attended an "Anglican-Use" Mass in Scranton. They have a married priest, with whom I'm friendly, a former Anglican clergyman, half of whose Episcopal parish followed him into Catholicism in the wake of all the stupidities which are vexing the Anglican communion. He was recently ordained to the Catholic priesthood by the auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton (which now has more married priests than the Eparchy of Passaic, which has none). The English language of that Mass was Elizabethan, i.e. ("the Quick and the Dead", thee & thou, etc.). My 17-year old daughter had no problem understanding what was being prayed. She rather liked the whole thing. So did I.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

In the late seventies of the century just passed, someone took an informal survey on the linguistic accessibility of the Book of Common Prayer (1662). Among other tests, the "surveyor", so to speak, asked a barely literate Verger if he could explain the use of the term "indifferently" in the prayer for magistrates "that they may rightly and indifferently administer justice."

Without hesitating, the Verger said "it means making no difference between one man and another" - which is exactly what the word does mean.

When the "surveyor" asked the Verger what "impartially" meant, the poor man had no idea.

As to the Quick and the Dead: it is said that the Duchess of Devonshire, upon seeing a motor car for the first time, commented that "if those things ever become popular, there will soon be no one left but the quick and the dead", which was at least a pleasant play on words!

Fr. Serge

AMM:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Ah, yes. Schmemann sought to elucidate and spread Orthodoxy through the dominant idioms and methodological norms of his time and place, rendering his scholarship and other writings categorically un-Patristic and anti-Orthodox. Despite, of course, the fact that the Fathers of the first five Christian centuries themselves did something similar...

And, yes, despite his assertions to the contrary, he was a captive of the West (and the academic West, in particular) and was, for good measure, a Uniate -- at least in spirit, as Archbishop Chrysostomos has said.

Schmemann's corpus is far from error-less and unproblematic. I'm not about to push for his elevation as the fourth holy theologian of Orthodoxy. But, then again, one could make the same observation about most of the Fathers... as well as Florovsky, Azkoul, Kallistos Ware, Romanides, Seraphim Rose, and Yannaras.

But let me understand this -- we criticize Father David (justly, IMHO), for failing to cite or otherwise rely upon the available, accepted scholarship (some of which is in the profane Western languages of French, English, and German) in his justification of the RDL, but we are then going to criticize Schmemann, Meyendorff, et al. for doing exactly that? Am I missing something here?

In Christ,
Theophilos (tragically, a Uniate with a shaved face)

Theophilos, I don't endorse the views in the link I posted, I just posted it as an example of what I believe was being referenced, i.e. the Parish school, etc. I have read a few things by Fr. Schmemann, and I myself enjoyed them.

My understanding of the liturgy and its history is not tremendously deep. The only real liturgical issue I can think of that I have is I wish the Orthodox hierarchs in this country would agree on a common English language translation, because it's confusing when you go to another parish and the words of the creed or the communion prayers are different. Otherwise I'm basically happy with the liturgy as it is used in my diocese including the prayers for the armed forces, the silent anaphora and so forth.

AMM:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, and I'm glad to hear that you have found Father Schmemann's work enjoyable (and profitable, I presume). You are not alone in this.

In Christ,
Theophilos

We are not criticizing Schmemann or Meyendorff & al. for relying on scholarship. But we are criticizing them

1) for misunderstanding the essence of the Liturgy and liturgical theology;

2) for their uncritical misthinking that they understood it better than the Church always has, and that they were in some position to dare to declare how the Church should have understood its proprietary.

Like that a duplicate litany here and there must be superfluous. Considerations like this are the culmination of stupidity, that is based on ignorance toward the Church tradition. According to this logic, why not to insist that having a Liturgy each Sunday is anything less than superfluous?

This is as productive as doing research on the Bible without regard to its very genesis and exegesis as the holy book of the Christian Church. Naturally, the same is applicable to research on the whole liturgical system and its codification in the classical service books.

So far as I know, Father John Meyendorff was never particularly involved in liturgiology. Is the reference then to his son, Paul Meyendorff? His book on the disastrous Nikonian tragedy is well worth reading.

Fr. Serge

Our parish is singing the new settings very well. There are a few bad habits we haven't been able to iron out yet, but by and large it's going quite well. Sundays are as packed as ever, if that means anything.

Kudos on your cantor practices! We should all be doing that once a week.

[quote=John Damascene]The Revised Divine Liturgy is a disaster nearly everywhere.

This strikes me as a highly irresponsible statement. One should be required to back up such a statement, parish by parish. As for the parishes I've been in, I have found the above statement to be completely false.--Tim Woods

Dear Administrator:

Yes, I too hope for a liturgy with a good translation and excellent music. Before the RDL, we good what seemed to be a good translation with settings not faithful to a strong tradition. Now we have much better music, but with a less than desirable translation. Is the third time the charm?

Brothers and Sisters,

I am disappointed to see the context in which the Liturgical translations are being discussed by many. Some are referring to the musical and lyrical translations as if they can be changed and re-changed an innumerable amount of times until those in the "historically educated" community come to an agreement. Do those who are "historically educated" not realize the damage that they have already caused by succumbing to this irresponsible version of the Divine Liturgy?

I may only be 24, and my entire childhood education in a Byzantine Catholic School and weekly church attendance may not be enough to "educate" me on the translations, but even I can see that these new books need to be revoked before we lose our Byzantine Catholic livelihood forever. The congregation see a lack of leadership. They are leaving the church. Those who have stayed do not sing. But instead of fighting for what their hearts tell them is right, their voices are held at bay and discouraged by the hypocrites that would have them believe that a dissenting voice to the newly translated Divine Liturgy would be viewed as appeasement to the devil himself.

To those who say that the youth of the church are accepting these changes, I argue that neither I nor anyone else I know is anything but disgusted with this whole display. I vow to fight for the future of my church until The Divine Liturgy is responsibly and properly restored with familiar words and singable tones.

Respectfully submitted in Christ

I will disagree that the new settings are better then the old.

There are number of problems with the new music that has been promulgated.

Firstly, it is a literal application of Bokšaj as if Bokšaj was somehow a canonical standard. In reality Bokšaj was just a snapshot of how Prostopinije was sung at one parish. Singing in the Church continued to develop since then. In the new recordings from Europe I find that the singing has developed from Bokšaj, and that it is almost identical to the Slavonic Divine Liturgy I grew up with. It would have been far better if the commission had allowed for such growth and respected it.

Secondly, there are numerous problems with accentuation of the English text. The arrangers of the new music surely meant well, and are to be thanked for their work, but they made the mistake of allowing the text to serve the music. In reality it is always the music that should serve the words. Liken it, if you will, to dancing. One partner leads and one follows. The music should always allow the text to lead. If you examine the first settings in English of the fixed texts for the Divine Liturgy (from the late 1950s through the official 1965 version) you can see how the arrangers struggled with this issue, and how they decided to make proper accentuation of the text more important than a literal application of the Prostopinije. I can disagree with some of their work while praising the fact that they allowed the chant to serve the text.

There is more, but I don’t want to get off track. The main problem with the new music is that it does not respect what the people have memorized and taken to heart. Forcing people – especially the elderly – to abandon all that they have accepted and internalized over a lifetime is simply wrong. Too many people have been spiritually hurt throughout this process of Revising the Divine Liturgy. I pray that the bishops will rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and will instead promulgate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as promulgated by Rome, and that corrected translations and associated music be respectful of both the Liturgical Tradition, of the clergy and the faithful (what they have memorized and keep as their rock), and proper English grammar and accentuation. We need authentic renewal with quality music. It needs to be accomplished gently over time by education, encouragement and example.

If I can adapt a bit of wisdom from Pope John XXIII: See everything. Note what is good and what is not so good. Change only what is absolutely necessary. Above all, do not harm souls.

John

"The main problem with the new music is that it does not respect what the people have memorized and taken to heart."

At some point they had to learn an English setting. As a church we had not always used English translation. So at some point there was a previous learning curve. This is a relatively weak argument for maintaing status quo.

The translations used for the RDL, the words which should lead the music, are somewhat clunky. While there will be ongoing debate about the best translation, there seemed to have been little thought to the flow of the translation (words) and the tones (music) they would be accompanied with by the IELC and IEMC.

Bokšaj was a de facto standard to preserve in notation the chant tradition of the cathedral. Even today, 100 years later, at the same cathedral, the music differs from Bokšaj's notation. for example Tone 8 troparion: Moleben particularly at 6:34. Compare that with the melody used in Bokšaj.

I never once suggested maintaining the status quo. In fact, I have argued for great change. In fact, I have accomplished more change in the past 25 years than probably anyone else except Msgr. Levkulic.

The issue is not whether change is necessary, change definitely was (is) necessary.

The issue is the type of change and the method of accomplishing change.

The first and foremost task of anyone seeking to effect change is not to harm souls. Forcing people to abruptly change what they have memorized over a lifetime hurts them.

Putting aside the problems with the incorrect rubrics for a moment, there were only a few words in the texts of the Divine Liturgy that were actually incorrect. The reasons the words to the Lord’s Prayer were not changed (because it was so familiar and memorized) are applicable to the other texts that have been memorized after 40 years of use. There is a hierarchy here. Those texts and music which are used at every Divine Liturgy are indeed memorized and should be changed only where they are actually wrong. Those texts and music used at Christmas, Holy Week and Pascha are almost as memorized. Texts and for Vespers and Matins, etc., which are not memorized are far easier to change. Think here of the example I used in the Roman Catholic Church, which changed the “Hail Mary” from “blessed art thou amongst women” to “blessed are you among women” in the 1970s. The original translation is so ingrained on the majority of people that the Latin Church essentially gave up and did not force the issue. Even now as they consider correcting the texts to their Mass they appear to be allowing some less then perfect translations to remain simply because they are so well memorized.

Yes, at some point the people learned an English setting. That is the whole point. They learned it and memorized it. For many it is all they have know from childhood. And to them the English setting for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy is as ingrained upon their souls as are the Slavonic settings (for at least the older folk). Changing what has been memorized and accepted causes great harm to people because they expect the Church to be an unchanging rock of stability in their lives. They are not being asked to learn something new. They are being told that what they memorized and prayed all their lives was wrong, that they need to abandon it, and learn something different. You just don’t force people to change the way they relate to God unless it is absolutely necessary. And even then you do it with great care.

Just the other day I spoke with a priest whose cantor recently flubbed the new “O Only-Begotten Son” and stopped dead. The cantor simply could not recover. So automatically the priest started “Glory be…" (the old “Only-Begotten Son #1). Before he got to “and to the Son” the cantor and people were with him. He said they raised the roof with both fond memory of what they had memorized and accepted (and which is now strictly forbidden). Changing the fixed texts and music for the Divine Liturgy in English now after 40 years is like attempting to change the Slavonic texts and music.

I like the Moleben that Steve linked. But would he recommend going into the Uzhorod Cathedral and telling them that the growth they have allowed in the chant is wrong and that they need force the singing to be literally faithful to Bokšaj (I’ve heard that version of Tone 8 and it is not the Bokšaj version! Horrors! Prepare for the hanging!)? Would he go to the parishes that still use Slavonic and tell them that they are singing “Dostojno Jest” incorrectly? [I’ve been to many parishes and heard it sung. I have never once heard it sung like it is notated on Bokšaj page 177 (Sokol Blue page 21). Everyone jumps up to the “D” on "bla-ži-ti T’a” rather then work their way up from the "B". Bokšaj was a snapshot of chant at one place and at one time. There are many such examples.] Prostopinije has continued to grow and that growth should have been respected. Like it or not the English settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy were as accepted and memorized as the Slavonic settings.

The road ahead I would map for the Ruthenian Church would be something like this:

-Rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and ask pastors to return to the old books.

-Promulgate all of the books of the Ruthenian recension as normative (and spend 10 years slowly raising the level of Liturgy by example, education and encouragement).

-Prepare new editions of the Liturgicons (Chrysostom and Basil) and the Pew Book that respect what has been memorized (the 1964) and changes only what is absolutely necessary.

-Teach cantors how to sing the Liturgy and how to set chant.

-Grant liberty in music. Keep the Gray/Green book settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy (so the Church can sing together) and allow liberty for everything else. When cantors work together (or even independently) a lot of good work can result. [My efforts in this area are surely meager when compared to what needs to be done. But I had developed an informal network of well over a hundred priests and cantors (roughly half of all subscribers) who sent feedback that I used to make improvements. I moved about 200 parishes away from the 1970s settings for changeable texts to something far more faithful both to the English texts (proper accentuation) and to Prostopinije. The main exception was the prokimeny where the parishes complained and I fixed some of the accents but only made modest changes to the melodies.]

-At some point soon the Ruthenian Church is going to need settings that are even simpler than Prostopinije. We have a large number of parishes where the cantor is someone who does not read music, can only sing what he memorized by standing next to the old cantor, and became the lead cantor only because the old cantor went home to the Lord and there was no one else. And we need to make allowances. It is far better for cantors to sing the unchanging texts of the Divine Liturgy well and take the changeable texts on a single note (or to a very simple setting) then it is for them to attempt to take everything in proper melody but then sing it in the key of flat. (Start simply and build.)


I agree. As much I can respect the hard work involved in preparing the currently mandated texts and music they don’t flow very well. The texts need to be as accurate as possible, in Standard English and grammatically correct (without political agendas). Change to texts should be made pastorally and only when the memorized text is actually an unacceptable translation. It would be great if a linguist was part of the team preparing texts (or, maybe even better, a retired English teacher who can be really nasty when adverbs are abused). Music should respect the “as sung”. It should properly accent the English texts so that the texts always lead (and never are subservient to the chant). Bokšaj is not canonical. Just like the Slavs took Greek chant and altered it to serve the Slavonic words (and later let it develop into great things like Prostopinije) so we, too, need to adapt Prostopinije to best serve the English texts. It’s not a matter of great simplification. It’s a matter of applying it in a way that serves the text.

The only real way to accomplish change is to demonstrate to the people that the change is good and let them embrace it freely. Mandatory change of this type hurts souls and hurting souls is wrong.