The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by PrJ
Perhaps you should read this first before you make this "guess" -- http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/liturgical_practices.htm
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!

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Quote
would like to add here that in all liturgical discussions the constant and popular reference to uniformity as a decisive argument is both useless and harmful. Perfect liturgical uniformity has never existed in the Church, even as an ideal, for the Church has never considered it to be the condition and expression of her unity. Her liturgical unity was always that of a general structure or ordo, never that of details and applications.

Quote
this text and its attendant music will be the sole liturgical text for the celebration of the Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great.





Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 645
Likes: 1
S
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 645
Likes: 1
Quote
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?
Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
Fr Serge-

who are these bureaucrats?

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

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Diak
Quote
would like to add here that in all liturgical discussions the constant and popular reference to uniformity as a decisive argument is both useless and harmful. Perfect liturgical uniformity has never existed in the Church, even as an ideal, for the Church has never considered it to be the condition and expression of her unity. Her liturgical unity was always that of a general structure or ordo, never that of details and applications.

[quote]this text and its attendant music will be the sole liturgical text for the celebration of the Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great.


Quote
It is as if we did not know today the complexities and, quite often, the deviations of our liturgical development, the unfortunate impact on Orthodox worship, theology, and piety of Western influences, the defects of a predominantly Western sacramental theology, the alienation of the laity from the sacramental life resulting in a purely legalistic approach to it in our parishes, the disastrous consequences especially in America of Uniatism, the plain fact finally that our Church is sick-liturgically and spiritually-and that it is certainly not by mere legal prescriptions that this sickness can be healed.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by PrJ
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. ...
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.]

Originally Posted by PrJ quoting Schmemman
Not everything that has been done for a hundred years and to which people are accustomed is necessarily correct in the light of the true liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy, and something which seems "new" and even "revolutionary' may very well be a much needed return to genuine tradition.
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.

Originally Posted by PrJ quoting Schmemman
I would like to add here that in all liturgical discussions the constant and popular reference to uniformity as a decisive argument is both useless and harmful. Perfect liturgical uniformity has never existed in the Church, even as an ideal, for the Church has never considered it to be the condition and expression of her unity. Her liturgical unity was always that of a general structure or ordo, never that of details and applications. Even today the Orthodox Church does not have one single Typikon, and there exits a great variety in practices among Orthodox Churches. Such variety has existed also within the same national Church: thus in Russia, for example, there were differences between Moscow and Kiev, between different monastic traditions, etc. 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.
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.�

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
Father Deacon asks me:
Quote
Fr Serge-

who are these bureaucrats?


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


Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by EdHash
Originally Posted by Etnick
I'm still waiting for Fr. David to explain why inclusive language was needed. Are the Orthodox wrong for not using it? confused

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.

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:

Quote
I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy.


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

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
I
Iov Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Quote
You will see that many (if not most) of Fr Schmemman's suggestions are included in the Ruthenian DL.
It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Thank you for your reply.
Ed

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 4
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 4
Quote
It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

You said it, my friend!

Alexandr

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Originally Posted by Iov
It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

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

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Monomakh
Originally Posted by Iov
It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

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.

Last edited by Jessup B.C. Deacon; 01/16/08 08:06 PM.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Iov
It is inconceivable how some are continuously deceived by the hollow rhetoric of this infamous Paris School renovationist.

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

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
This link probably encapsulates some of the criticisms of Fr. Schmemann.

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

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
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.

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.

Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5