As the feast of Saints Peter and Paul approaches, it will mark one year since the RDL has been mandatory in all BCA parishes.

I was wondering if people here could share what has happened at their parishes in the year since the RDL has been implemented.

Have vocations increased?

Has attendance gone up?

Have the number of females attending and becoming active increased because of the inclusive language?

Have the number of missions started gone up?

Has singing increased?

Thanks in advance.

Monomakh

The clergy of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh blame the Revised Divine Liturgy for the precipitous decline in attendance in the past year. It was the mostly unspoken and forbidden topic at the clergy days back in May.

Have vocations increased?
No.

Has attendance gone up?
No. Quite the opposite. People have walked away in droves.

Have the number of females attending and becoming active increased because of the inclusive language?
A number of people who have walked away have stated that the so-called ‘inclusive language’ is the reason they left. It is not, however, the only reason.

Have the number of missions started gone up?
The underlying theme of the clergy days seemed to be planning for the closure of parishes and the dissolution of the BCC.

Has singing increased?
The clergy cannot sing the new music. Even the bishops realize this now. But I do not think they care. Praise the Lord, Rome is speaking. It may be too little too late but it is something.

I'd separate vocations (diaconate / priesthood) into a completely different box. I shall reserve my opinion about how vocations are being handled, and just say one hand is beckoning for new people and the other is firmly in a pocket.

How very sad. The RDL mandate was like pushing a self-destruct button.

"The underlying theme of the clergy days seemed to be planning for the closure of parishes and the dissolution of the BCC."


I seriously hope this never happens. I still have a bit of a soft spot for the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church, and really don't want to see my parents buried from the Latin rite that they have never belonged to.

Have the number of missions started gone up?
The underlying theme of the clergy days seemed to be planning for the closure of parishes and the dissolution of the BCC.

For real? What will happen to us, will we become Latin Rite Catholics, or Orthodox?

At our church:

Attendance has gone down (including myself).

Singing has decreased and many times it is a cantor solo.

doesn't everyone have this when changes are made? the changes can be brilliant and they would still be changes. you would not know what to chant; so decreased singing and participation and a level of communal discomfort is just built right in.

just think, anglicans and the '79 prayerbook controversy. now if you are a latin rite catholic, the '79 prayerbook looks like mana from heaven, but at the time groups left the episcopal church over it. 30 years later, it just seems silly.

i am not sure 1yr is enough time to make a judgment about the changes.

i am also not sure that people leaving is a good measure of the quality of a translation either. when people leave a parish over issues like that, i always find it a little sketchy. it makes me think there is a prior failure to integrate the community into a living parish (unless blocs of families are getting up and moving together to another place).

that said, the BCCA is facing a serious challenge to its future in terms of numbers. if americans are becoming catholic, then for the most part they are going to join the latin church. if they are attracted to the divine liturgy, then most likely they are going to become orthodox. it is the rare person who is strongly in favor of the papacy AND wants john chrysostom's liturgy on a regular basis.

I suppose that would depend upon whether the person considers gender neutered language and odd rubrics to be brilliant changes.

that was my point. i don't think 1 yr provides anyone with enough distance to know whether or not these are translations which will endure, or what is an odd rubric and what is just clashing on ears that are used to a previous translation.

On the contrary: I think it is plenty of time. Some of the fruits (or lack thereof) are already evident.

The vast majority of us did not need more than five minutes to know what an awful failure the RDL is.

I do not have the time or emotional energy to get into another argument with the anti-RDL crowd. So, anything they write in response to my post will be ignored by me regardless of my opinion of their statements. That being said, I felt someone ought to say they thought Invocation has a reasonable opinion. So, "I think Invocation has a reasonable opinion." I know he, and I, will be outnumbered quickly by anti-RDL posters. But I think that's the nature of the forum and not fully reflective of the general population. I just write because I think the people who have strong opinions are getting too carried away and hurting the spirituality of otherwise oblivious individuals. I could potentially see this damage coming from both sides of the RDL argument, but it seems most damaging from the anti-RDL side due to their insistence that a great destruction of the Church or serious heresy is afoot. Opinions I cannot concur with and which I find spiritually damaging to others.

I would, however, commend all those on both sides of this discussion if they are current members of the BCA or at least another Catholic jurisdiction and their opinions are based upon a genuine love for the Catholic Faith and Church. While I may disagree with the anti-RDL group's opinions and tactics, I must acknowledge that their love, if a correct love, is to be admired. I have no comment for those outside the Church as I do not think it would be useful or appropriate for me to comment on such persons in the context of this post.

Felix, things must be different in Texas because here in Ohio the reverse is true. Most people abhor the RDL. If you would have had the opportunity to experience the Red Book, you would understand. That's the one unfortunate fact in this whole argument -- the people who have experienced the Red Book want nothing less. If the use of the Red Book would have been wide-spread, we would have many more people upset.

The Red Book is the GOLD STANDARD. Anything else, is well, less. Until you experience the Red Book, you really can't comment one way or the other. That's what all the anti-RDL posters are comparing this new liturgy to. I know if you could experience the Red Book, you would love it too. I guarantee it. And then you would be in our camp.

I'm going to respond as one with formal training in Theology and as a man on a journey East. The current translation of the DL was translated from the earliest Greek translations that we have available. This is in accord with the norm for theological translations, we do not hold third generations translations of Holy Scripture (i.e. a new translation from a German translation which was from early source documents) as valid so why would a DL translation from Church Slavonic in to English be valid. There were also problems with the original translation into Slavonic.

As mentioned before there will always be people upset with changes whether for the good or bad. At my parish we have had at least one person that I know of leave our parish because she did not like the de-Latinization, including the new translation and the work to make the church feel more Eastern.

My only wish is that all of the Byzantine Rite Churches in the United States would have come together to work on a common translation of the Liturgy rather than just the Ruthenian.

I pray that we not get so caught up on words on a page, but how the words and the meaning behind the words resonate in our heart. I would take a guess to say that Our Holy Father Among the Saints John Chyrsostom is looking down from Heaven laughing at us for arguing over a trivial tranlsation.

Felix,
Check out St.Seraphim OCA Cathedral in Dallas. You live within an hour or so away. You will get the equivalent of the "Red Book" liturgy that the BCC should be using.

Just to warn you, however, you'll be in church for up to two hours.

Greek translations? What exactly were these "earliest Greek" versions that were the source of the RDL?


Was the 1965 liturgicon translation not "valid"? Presumably the Ruthenian Recension, its text, is our proper heritage; it is what has been handed down to us. Has anyone on the RDL translation committee or our bishops ever indicated otherwise? One should also recall Patriarch Nikon and his views on the superiority of the Greek over the Slavonic.


Legitimate questions have been raised about specifics of the translation and the status of the Recension. They deserve to be addressed and adequately and authoritatively answered.

We're "so caught up on words on a page" because if they are a poor translation -- the wrong words -- they will "resonate" incorrectly.

As "one with formal training in Theology", is dropping a word, anthropous, from the Creed in translation, a word with theological significance, "trivial"? The RDL is also an abridgment of the full text of the liturgy, which full version in English is now actually proscribed. Is that also "trivial"?

I would be cautious to call the translation that is the RDL "trivial", since many lifelong Byzantine Catholics are very upset by it.

It has caused too much dissension in a church that is a fraction of the size it used to be.

Excuse me? First of all, Greek translations from what? Second, I would scarcely regard the 1950 Rome edition of the Ieratikon as the oldest Greek text available!

Those who support the Revised Liturgy of Pittsburgh are certainly entitled to defend it. But I hope that they can do a better job than this!

Fr. Serge

Felix, if you do not have the time or emotional energy to post charitably and objectively you will not last long on this Forum.

FDRLB

If we are going to talk about the "feel", then we need to incorporate mandated abbreviations, inclusive modernist American translations, and new music many often find unsingeable into that "feel". I would posit the "feel" is more like modern neo-Latin American liturgy with these considerations than any fuller celebration of the Divine Liturgy in either Greek Catholic or Orthodox churches that I have experienced. For the sake of brevity I will only say I strongly disagree this translation to be in any way a more faithful translation from extant Greek texts than what is already present in the Greek Catholic or Orthodox world.

Quote:


Such people certainly exist; I have had the sad experience of meeting some of them every so often (although not, thank God, in my present parish). Father Archimandrite Robert Taft touches on this problem sometimes.

Basically, the case is one of "internalized oppression" and the conviction that our several traditions really have nothing to offer. One need not look to religious groups to find it - here in Dublin I can certainly find people (indeed, it's hard to avoid them) who think that Irish "culture" is non-existent and certainly worthless, that the Irish language is not really a language at all ("you can talk about cows" is a common expression), that the Irish Catholic tradition is nonsense - that Ireland is, or at least should be, that part of England where the Catholics live.

The diagnosis is not difficult. The cure is very difficult indeed. But it is not quite hopeless. Every once in a while, someone comes along and manages to convince people that Taras Shevchenko was correct when he exhorted the Ukrainians "learn from others, but do not despise what is your own!"

Fr. Serge

Diak,

I am sorry if my post appeared uncharitable. It was not my intention. However, I have found that whatever I say in regard to the RDL will always have a post written in response. If I don't respond to this post, it will appear that I might not disagee. I didn't want to get into another battle of endless posts on the RDL issue. That's all I was trying to say.

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

Felix

Etnick,

I appreciate your suggestion on this issue. Certainly the experience of a thing assists in understanding it. That being said, I have been to St. Seraphim's before. I have observed that the BCA RDL uses a more modern version of English and that there is more of an emphasis in congregational participation than that found at St. Seraphim's. I also know that the liturgy takes longer at St. Seraphim's, although the reasons for this does not usually seem apparent to the uneducated observer. I don't want to get into the merits of the differences, but I will say that I unequivocally prefer the BCA RDL. But I don't think my opinion matters more than anecdotally where the issue is of merits. If the BCA started using the Archbishop Dmitri texts required at St. Seraphim's it would be a reasonable decision that I would accept.

It has been suggested to me by private message that I should have been aware that the deacon who goes by "Diak" is a deacon and that I should post an apology for not addressing him as such. It has also been suggested to me that I should have checked his profile so that I would have known this.

I did know the deacon going by "Diak" was a deacon. It did not occur to me to address him formally in my post. I did know that some other people do so, but I did not know this was required in this informal setting where people commonly go by informal abbreviations. I am sorry if I offended him in this regard. It was not my intention. I typically consider people on this forum to be similar to friends and, thus, only retain formal titles with people of the priest level. This is how I have always treated my friends who are deacons. However, I was apprently in error as regards the forum.

Note - I have secular formal titles that I do not expect individuals on this forum to be aware of or to honor. However, the are honored by those addressing me in real life. One exception, my friends (and my wife and child).

In case I was unclear, Fr. Deacon, you have my apologies if I offended you.

I have quit discussing the RDL since emotions are so heated on this issue. And often, it is emotion, not reason or logic that I hear in many arguments. Who knows how the RDL will "shake out" over time. If God doesn't like it, or even if he does, I suspect he can and will direct whatever happens to it.

I never know what to write but I feel like I need to say something. My husband and I are among those who find the RDL to be so offensive we just don’t go to it. The words are all different and all that political correctness is offensive. The music is klunky and not even our cantor can sing it. Every few weeks our family visits a different non-Ruthenian BC parish. We hope we can find a new church not far from us but we really hope the RDL is cancelled by Rome or the bishops. A couple of weeks ago we went to St. Josaphat’s Ukrainian Church. We were surprised that there were children there. That is unusual in a Ruthenian BC Church were our kids made up a third of the ccd group. Back during Easter to St. Theodosius Orthodox Cathedral. We were surprised that they both take the Divine Liturgy the way we used to a long time ago. Father David Petras said on this forum that that the Orthodox Churches had already made all these changes. Well he is wrong. The liturgy is slightly different in ever parish but they are all really close to our old liturgy. And neither the Ukrainians nor the Orthodox are forbidding the prayers our bishops have forbidden. I still don’t understand why the bishops would ever forbid prayer. The Byzantine Liturgy is so beautiful. The bishops should allow it! Maybe Father Petras and the bishops should visit some of these churches to see how the liturgy is supposed to be taken. But didn't they see that in Europe they take the whole liturgy and the churches are full? Why can't they make the connection?

I strongly disagree. Most of the arguments I see here opposing the RDL are extremely reasoned and logical arguments.

Lady Byzantine's comments are excellent and deserve wide circulation.

Fr. Serge

Felix,

What do you specifically like about the RDL, as opposed to the version before it, or an Orthodox liturgy? I find this kind of puzzling, since the overwhelming majority of Byzantine Catholic posters here do not like the RDL.

Forgive me if this comes off gruffly.

Do we think it is the liturgy or the Ruthenian mindset that is to fault here? I can speak to my parish at least in years passed refused to accept converts and told them to go to the Roman parish "down the street" or were happy to talk to interested people on the phone until the priest asked the last name of the caller and then on finding the name to be Anglo-Saxon the tone changed drastically.

Fast forward 3 years under a new priest. Of our last few Baptisms and Chrismations 2 new parishioners are black, a nice hispanic family, and none of the rest were from Byzantine Catholic backgrounds. We have an average of 1-2 converts a month. When the children go up to hear the Gospel there are 15-20 of them. Everyone sings. The fellowship hall is full after the divine liturgy. What a difference a mindset changed.

The green book is certainly change, but can we cite it for the inward looking attitude or the falling birth rates?

We have seen the true light! We have received the Heavenly Spirit! We have found the true faith! Therefore, let us worship the undivided Trinity who has saved us!

Let us evangelize the unchurched and shine that light on the world. It does not grow dimmer with sharing, but brighter. The people that join our church still don't know "whether they are on heaven or on earth" regardless of the complaints those who experienced the previous ways make.

Etnick,

I do not have access to entire texts of the pre-RDL use, so its harder for me to say what I like about the RDL in comparison to pre-RDL usage. I can comment on the RDL versus OCA Diocese of the South usage - I am familiar with both. In addition to my personal experiences of the RDL and the OCA Archbishop Dmitri liturgy text, I have performed, tonight, a side-by-side comparison of the texts for each service. This post reflects both my general feelings about each text as well as any observations I have made based upon a comparison of the two. I would add that these are just my opinions, just my preferences. I don't in any way mean that I think the Archbishop's text is improper. I respect him and recognize his expertise in the area of liturgy. I have not made comparisons with other Orthodox texts, but I would note a familiarity with the Greek and Antiochian texts and I would note that I love Antiochian style chant (its my fav).

1. I note that the introduction to both the Archbishop Dmitri (AD) and RDL texts claims that they are translations from the Greek. To me, this seems to indicate that both the AD and RDL translator(s) looked to the Greek texts as authoritive.

2. The RDL introduction indicates that its translation of biblical quotes and allusions was guided by the New American Bible and the Grail Psalter I own the NAB and think its a decent modern English translation. I see no problem with its utilization for guidance. I do not own a copy of the Grail Psalter, but I have no thoughtful and serious complaints regarding the psalms as found in the RDL text. By contrast, the AD text used the King James Bible and a similarly styled version of the Psalter for guidance, making changes where necessary for accuracy. I have personally experienced this usage. I find the chanting of archaic English more difficult to take in and comprehend than modern English. This is especially true when the person chanting is chanting too quickly saying or not properly enunciating his words. I find the acoustics at St. Seraphim's only compounds the problem. I know many do not feel like KJV English is more difficult to comprehend than modern English. I must simply disagree, especially when awkward word order is part of that equation. And as we all know, liturgical texts often have a less than optimal word order. This is sometimes because of the music/chant setting, sometimes because of poor translation, and sometimes necessary to make the texts sound adequately reverent. I think it occurs more often in texts using archaic English.

3. Of course, this brings us to the use of inclusive language, which can be found in the RDL. I prefer the use of inclusive language, unless it obscures intended messages found in the texts being translated here. I am no expert on ancient languages, but from my examination of both texts, as well as personal, and some review of the posts on this site, it appears to me that the inclusive language used in the RDL is appropriate. As the RDL appears more in step with my preference for inclusive language than the AD, I favor it over the AD in regards to this issue.

4. I prefer the AD into ("Bless, Master") to the RDL ("Reverend Father, give the blessing"). However, I think both sound too much like commands and not enough like requests.

5. I do not like the AD "now and ever, and unto ages of ages" or the RDL "now ever and forever." I prefer a simpler "now and forever." So I don't like either the AD or the RDL texts in this regard, both seem to have unnecessary and meaningless additional words.

6. The AD seems to prefer that the choir and reader give responses, whereas the RDL seems to prefer congregational responses. I prefer congregational because I think it more reflects the role of the laity in coming together as Church. Plus, I like to have as much opportunity to participate in the praise of the Trinity as I can.

7. The RDL indicates when the faithful may "sit." I also note that BCA parishes seem to be more likely to have pews or extra places to sit than OCA Diocese of the South parishes. I prefer pews/chairs be available for everyone, not just old people and pregnant mothers. I know others think pews and any other adequate form of congregational seating have no place in a Byzantine church. I like pews, I like them. I admit it. Bottom line, I think its nice to sit down from time to time.

8. Both texts have what the RDL calls the "Litany of Peace." The RDL has three antiphons; the AD has three antiphons (I recognize that's an oversimplification). The BA has prayers between the antiphons, the RDL does not. The AD prayers don't seem necessary as the requests found in these prayers have already been covered by the Litany of Peace.

9. I prefer the AD "Let us attend" to the RDL "Let us be attentive." Although, I think the latter may be a better rendering in English, I have to wonder if an even better way to say this isn't out there.

10. I think we should either make catechumens leave the liturgy (as well as all non-Catholics) or we should not say "Catechumens, depart." Therefore, because the AD requires it, and the RDL omits it, I prefer the RDL to the AD.

11. I prefer the inclusive language of the Creed as found in the RDL to the language of the AD Creed. Further, I see no reason to use the archaic "spake by the prophets" as found in the AD.

12. Obviously, there are differences in that the AD text has more prayers and litanies than the RDL. I can't find an instance where this bothers me.

13. I do not like the AD or RDL Our Father. I would have preferred to go with a more modern translation.

14. I know many people do not like the music forced upon their parishes by the RDL, however, I would note that Archbishop Dmitri makes changes to music and requires his parishes to conform to those changes. This stuff seems to happen. Also, while it may be a change, I really like the RDL music. I admit it, I like it. That being said, I still like Antiochian style chant more. The music at St. Seraphim's is good, but the focus on choir singing, to the general exclusion of the congregation, is not to my liking.

15. Length, the DA always seems to last a long time at St. Seraphim's. I prefer brevity over unnecessary length. I know others think the length is necessary. But I don't (I have a 2 year old daughter). I think the time required for the RDL is a good amount of time. If people want more church, they can come more often.

16. In general, I think the RDL is inspiring and truly conveys the message of love and hope found in the Gospel. It seems like a very optimistic text, a glass-half-full text. I always leave thinking how much I enjoyed the service. I know we are there for God, but its still nice to feel good when you leave from the liturgy.

So, that's what I like and what I don't like. Is the RDL exactly how I'd do it? I don't know, I didn't try to translate it, so I can't say what I would have done. But it looks like a proficient and reasonable effort. I enjoy the RDL services I attend. I am, however, open to whatever reasonable liturgical text the BCA requires. My job is to attend, pray, etc. The hierarchy has the job of promulgating a text. Except in a grave situation, I try to focus just on the job committed to me.

Have a good weekend everyone,

Felix

... Continued prayers for the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.

Brat' Etnick,

Just came back from Staryj Kraj. I was in heaven last Sunday when I had the extreme priviledge of attending Utrenia, Sluzhba Bozhe AND Vechernia in my Dido's parish. I had to explain to all of my Rusyn cousins how those of us now have truncated liturgy and how we NEVER have Utrenia and Vechernia here at our "Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church of America" parish. They were all in disbielf! Fortunately, I have lots of analog and digital video clips that I replay. Does anyone know how I could upload they short digital video clips??

Ung

Which section of the Old Country is this parish in? Sounds like Transcarpathia to me, but I could be wrong. Anyway, glad you had a lovely time. By the way, the privilege is enviable, but not extreme.

As to the reproduction of the video clips, I'm a technological moron, but I might suggest getting everything on to a DVD (in something resembling the correct order) and making the DVD available for a modest consideration.

Fr. Serge

O. Serge,

Da,Zakarpats'ka Rajon. Selo Ungcsertezs of course! !

Ung

Since we never had the pristine, uncut, original liturgy in this part of the world to begin with, there's not that much difference between the RDL and what we had. I realize that the majority of forum poster do not like the RDL, but is that representative of the majority of the church? No one has taken a poll of the people to see what the majority thinks. Some of the forum posters come across as exteremely bitter and biased against any change, no matter how small. It also appears that some in our church leadership may look at this forum as nearly schismatic and disobedient, the hostility is so great. I have seen and read references to the "cyber war" that goes on here. Again, does that represent the views of the majority, or just the minority of Byzantines who actually read and post here? Here's my approach. It's my church and I'm not leaving. I may not like everything that happens, but I can prayerfully and charitably work to change those things I don't like. I refuse to become an embittered whiner, since I think the devil always wins in that situation. Look at the poor Latins. It took around 40 years of work to get back the liturgy they had lost after Vatican II. A dear friend of mine went to her grave working for what Pope Benedict has restored. She never saw the result of her labor. But the important point is that she stayed in the fight and worked for change.

I think that this forum serves a purpose for those against the RDL -- it gives us a place to share our feelings and our desire for our own, full Liturgy, that are otherwise ignored by our Hierarchy. How many people have written, and actually received a well-thought out reply, or an invitation to sit-down one-on-one to talk with the Bishop about the Liturgy? I can assure you, very few, if any.

I think most people who abhor the RDL feel one of the main problems is it appears the RDL was created in a vacuum. We have been asked/told by Rome to consult with other Byzantines & Orthodox to work on a common translation. This was our opportunity, and we in essence thumbed our noses at this request. Aside from creating a more accurate translation, like proper rubrics and "unto ages of ages" (sorry Felix), and adding the word orthodox, it would have brought us closer to unity. Instead, this moves us farther away, and that's why it needs to be recalled.

It's all about the big picture.

I understand your position. But has anyone ever established what the ordinary folks think? Most of what I hear about the people objecting to the RDL is so anecdotal it's not believable. It seems to be along the lines of, "my aunt hates it" or "people have left my parish." Is the aunt representative of anyone, and were people leaving anyway? There's nothing really accurate and verifiable about any of this. Maybe things are different where you are, but BCA liturgies have been notorious for years for being abbreviated and not following the books. Most of us have never seen that original liturgy that folks here seem to pine for. Someone always seems to mention a liturgy they saw at "St. Anachronistic" that was pristine, but is that really representative or an abberation? Again, where are any verifiable numbers or facts concerning the RDL?

For someone who has said he quit discussing this, you have quite a bit more to say.



I'm not sure what "pristine, uncut, original liturgy" means. Could you elaborate since no one has yet used that term in this Forum?

Many Greek Catholics have indeed historically experienced a fuller liturgy - many of our older people know it from years gone by, as Ung has mantioned. And some of these dear living saints even know a great deal by heart. In most of the UGCC parishes I have worked in, all I have to do is start a hymn and they are there singing usually without the need of a book.

If one travels outside of their own small parochial world along the Eastern Christian horizon, whether it is to other Greek Catholic churches or Orthodox, differences will become apparent. For those more experienced in Eastern Christian liturgy (who in general seem to be the majority of those opposed to the RDL) the fullness of revelation and praise of God is an important thing, indeed.

Every Catholic, whether Greek Catholic, Latin or some other Eastern Catholic, should have the opportunity to know the fuller expression of their liturgical heritage. That goes for the Byzantine Rite as well as the Latin, Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

FDRLB

I keep reading the same complaints from the same individuals about the people objecting to the RDL. I haven't heard the people objecting to anything, other than the liturgy being too long, etc. Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that the people object to the RDL? I am open minded on it and will listen to any facts anyone cares to present. I wouldn't say the RDL is perfect by any means, but I haven't made up my mind on it. As far as I know, the Ukrainian church hasn't changed anything and this is strictly a BCA matter. However, there isn't a Ukrainian church within hundreds of miles, if not more, of here. Consequently, I don't have a basis for comparison between the two. We do have OCA and Greek Orthodox churches here, but I suspect they were probably different from the BCA before the RDL.

Come to Pittsburgh and I will physically take you to speak with many parishioners in many parishes who are in opposition to the RDL.

Ung

I can't go to Pittsburgh at the moment, but that is something I can plan for the future.

It's refreshing to see that you are open minded.

I suggest an exercise in thought. Much of the RDL (sans inclusive language, music, and a few other items) had been implemented in the past in Parma and then Passaic when Bishop Pataki went there. But the whole chopping up and shortening of the liturgy and ignoring traditional rubrics has been going on for a long time. Now this is the norm across the Archeparchy as a whole.

Was the BCA growing or declining in this period?

Was the BCA getting more or less vocations?

Why when I visit BCA churches in my travels am I generally the only one without grey hair?

Why have there been countless incidences of people coming up to me and telling me that the sound of my kids was the first time in years that they heard a child in church?

Are the really any successes or trends on a large scale that have ever occurred from chopping up and removing traditional rubrics?

Why would anyone expect the RDL to all of sudden bring growth, success, more vocations etc. ?

Someone wrote that one year is not enough to see the results. What would be a proper length of time? Do we have to wait until parishes are being closed down in the future in order to have enough evidence?

Where is the evangelization plan and actions to implement one and grow the church?

I could see the proponents of the RDL having a leg to stand on if there was success across the country with the revisions of the past, but I really don't see any leg for them to stand on.

Monomakh

Much to think about. I will look into all the points you have raised. Thanks.

Felix,

No one wants to argue with you about the RDL, this is not personal; it is simply a fact that hardly anyone on this forum likes it. I can tell you it is not just an "internet group" against it, as some in Pittsburgh have thought.

I do not know anyone in my parish who likes it all. It simply is not a good liturgy. Its use of inclusive language is unacceptable.

Blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World

With the people I have talked to I find: 1) most do not care for the new music. 2) most are annoyed with translation changes for things they had memorized and sang often. 3) none have said anything about rubrical changes, except for those in parishes where Vesperal Liturgies have started and that is to complain about the length.

So, as I have said before, one must distinguish between the translation, the music, and the rubrics and what it is people don't like. The majority of those who don't like the RDL do not dislike it for the same reasons as the members of this forum do. The majority simply want their Blue Book Liturgy and Music back. Sadly they would probably dislike a complete Red Book Liturgy as much as the RDL.

Fr. Deacon Lance

How many have ever been to a Red Book liturgy? The parishes that did it were few and far between. I only know of one in the entire Cleveland area that did it.

Very few. The point is it is not the Liturgy itself, but the fact that it would be a change and it would be longer is why they would dislike it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Monomakh-

In the mission Eparchy of Van Nuys (population approx 3000 souls among some 19 parishes) here is a simple overview-

Since 1994 (please keep in mind we have been celebrating a form of the so-called "RDL" at least since the episcopacy of his Grace, George (Kuzma), emeritus of Van Nuys,1991-2000):

5 men ordained to the priesthood (1 cradle Byzantine Catholic Slav, 1 Mexican-American, 2 Irish-Americans, 1 Anglo-American)

12 men ordained to the diaconate (2 cradle Byzantine Catholic Slavs, 4 Irish-Americans, 2 Mexican-Americans, 2 Greek-American, 1 Polish-American, and 1 Aussie-American). These numbers are exclusive of those deacons ordained to the priesthood.

1 seminarian currently at Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Mr. Diodoro Mendoza, Our Lady of Wisdom, Las Vegas, NV(Mexican-American)

2 candidates in diaconal formation

1 postulant entered Holy Annunciation Monastery of the Byzantine Carmelite Nuns in Sugarloaf, Miss Melissa Morrow, OLPH, Albuquerque, NM

Currently there are plans to establish at least 2 outreaches (Washington and Arizona). Our ability for further growth is hampered only by a lack of priestly vocations.

Regarding children- let's just say if you were to visit the pro-Cathedral parish in Phoenix, your children would be lost in the crowd of kids. Mysteries of Initiation are a regular celebration at our parish (approx 7 per year). Our families tend to be on the larger side. 4 children are about the norm. There are families with 6, 7, and 8 children.

Now I have grey hair, but there are quite a number of young dads in our parish. Some have grey hair, some are bald, and some dye their hair.

Do these "sucesses" develop as a direct result of the Divine Liturgy? Who knows.

The "success" of our parish may be related to how we perceive our Faith. Liturgy is an important expression of that Faith, but if we don't live our Faith beyond Sunday morning, no liturgical expression, no matter how faithful to the official books, will draw people to Christ.

In our parishes you will find Slavic-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Irish-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, German-Americans, Korean-Americans, Polynesians, Chinese-Americans, etc. Some are 1st generation; some families have been in the US for generations. We do not see the liturgical patrimony of our Byzantine Church as an expression of a particular culture. We do see the liturgical patrimony of our Church as an expression of Faith that will transcend ethnic labels and provide the way for our intimate relationship with God. In turn, that relationship will allow us to develop proper relationships within and without the parish community in order to draw others to Christ.

Dear brothers and sisters,

Fr. Deacon John's post is a wise one; please let it sink in. I love my Rusyn roots and heritage. Our people were people of deep faith; more so than they were devoted to their culture. That is why they came to America. Perhaps if they could tell us what they think of their offspring we would not be very pleased; maybe they regret their decision to emigrate which exposed their ascendants to modern American "Hollywood culture" which many of us have succumbed to.

Secondly, our beloved cantors are nearly as critical to the BCA survival as our priests. But (with few exceptions) our priests have changed to the revised Liturgy. Why can't our cantors??? It exposes either a disobedience,lack of talent or a poor decision to change from the old local preferred tones to instead sing all the #1 versions (or whatever). The only Sunday Liturgical hymn for which our old version was completely dropped was the Incarnation Hymn (O only Begotten Son.) I don't claim to have been a real knowledgeable or talented (former)cantor, but after a year I can sing the new versions almost as well as the old, and most weeks I don't even have the notes in front of me. I'm not defending all the musical changes; just reminding the cantors that their vocation is a special one; it is a vocation of leadership which also requires obedience.

Thirdly, I was at the clergy meeting in May and I certainly did NOT hear any talk about preparing for the demise of our Church. There was some serious talk about how the smallest parishes may have to be closed because of the real and serious priest shortage. I can't fully agree that there is no alternative; I think the people would accept regularly scheduled reader or Typika services as am alternative.

Fourth, perhaps Pittsburgh and Cleveland have succumbed to the "me" mentality, but here in the more remote areas I haven't witnessed a decline in attendance due to the RDL. Now, some people have fallen asleep in the Lord, but I don't think it was because of the RDL.

I was much more naive in the 60' when our area started the Liturgy in the vernacular, but, as I recall, there was just as much if not more of a hubbub at that time. Our beloved cantor didn't complain about the changes that he had to accept, but out of love he worked with us kids so that we could learn the new language and, may I add, some very different music than what we were used to.

May the Price of Peace lead us all to peace in our heart.

Z'nami Boh!

Fr Deacon Paul

This goes back to a thread where I mentioned the short attention span that many people have. Too much of the Roman Catholic way of thinking has infiltrated the Greek Catholic church.

Three quarters of the people that attend my OCA parish are well over 65. They stand for the entire liturgy, and I've never heard one complain that almost two hours is too long.

The BCC has been latinized for too long to expect the people to stand or even be in church for more than an hour.

The sad fact is that the "Red Book" will never be the norm in the BCC, yet the same liturgy is the standard for the Orthodox world.

Try Saint Michael's, New York. The Divine Liturgy is not abbreviated, the people mostly stand throughout, including the sermon, the choir leads the assembly in singing simple Russian music (mostly in English), and I've never heard anyone complain of the length of the service (which is usually about 75-90 minutes).

Fr. Serge

I also suggest speaking with some of the former parishoners of the Gallup mission, who also started and then closed the only vocations/summer camp to my knowledge in that Eparchy and possibly in the entire Metropolia. This was a community composed almost entirely of younger families.

To add to Fr. Serge's post I would also highly recommend attending St. Elias as well - even not including Matins it is about the same length (90 minutes or so). You will not hear any complaints there about length of services.

I was in Cleveland for Fr. Deacon Daniel (Gordon's) ordination a couple of weeks ago and attended Pokrova for Sunday DL - literally standing room only for a regular Sunday liturgy, and lots of kids and younger families (and about two hours, including a Moleben).

"Three quarters of the people that attend my OCA parish are well over 65"

That is scary.

The Gallup outreach (not mission) has closed. Those pioneering souls had been making the trek to OLPH in Alburquerque. A few hours round trip. As I understand the organizing families moved away.

Your information on the "Alive in Christ" vocation camp, however, is incorrect. This men's vocation development ministry continues to thrive. In fact the 6th Annual Camp will take place July 5-8 at Palomar Christian Conference Center, near Escondido, CA. Registration is closed.

In addition, the Eparchy has launched a retreat for women. The Myrrh-Bearers Retreat is for women 7 years and older. Some 40+ women and young ladies from across the eparchy are on retreat this weekend, June 27-29 at Mount Claret Retreat Center, Phoenix, AZ. My wife and two of my daughters, ages 16 and 12, are making that retreat.

How much longer would a Red Book DL be?

Father Lance makes some very good points, and these are points many of us made to the bishops and others in authority repeatedly before the mandate of the Revisions. Pretty much everyone in the Church hates the reforms. Most do so for more than one reason but also everyone has different reasons.

Texts – I have done a side by side comparison of the 1964 text with various English sources (about 5 or 6 other liturgicons from various Churches (Catholic and Orthodox), Father Serge’s excellent review of the RDL and of the RDL texts themselves). As I have pointed out on numerous occasions there are a small number of true corrections that could have been well received with proper education. But most of the changes are unnecessary. Some reek of political correctness. The changes have only served to harm the faithful. Is it any wonder that the people hate the new texts?

Music – In 1964 the musical settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy were purposely set in a style that was slightly simplified. This was done in order to properly accent the English texts. While I do not agree with every note, I respect that much of what was done then has long been memorized and for most of the Church is prostopinije. Why was it necessary to reinsert past ethnicity into the chant by returning it to 1906, so severely that the accents are incorrect? I don’t see any justification for changing the music for the fixed texts, beyond those slight changes to accommodate the change of a word or two. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I started setting music I used a very literal style for the changeable texts. I quickly learned 1) few would sing it because they didn’t like it and 2) the ‘as sung from memory in Slavonic’ was, in fact, often quite different than Boksaj. There was no reason to treat Boksaj as canonical. Music changes over time to serve the faithful. Let it change. Also be open to new compositions and even some ‘American’ music. [I am still puzzled that someone involved in preparing the RDL music railed against my 1984 Christmas Carol book because it was “polluted with American Hymns” such as “We Three Kings”, as I am about the non-inclusion of the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes to Russian Tone 1 because that melody – known and used in many parishes – was found unworthy since it wasn’t ethnic (Ruthenian) enough. I will also note the way to change music is to do so slowly, as I did over the course of 25 years.]

Rubrics – On this point I will only partially agree with Father Lance. People do not like change and, after 30+ years of abbreviated Liturgies change must be done with great care and gentleness. That is why I offered my 5-10 year plan to return most parishes to a fuller Divine Liturgy. I’ve seen it work. I know of several parishes that went from the most abbreviated Sunday Divine Liturgies to a very full ‘Red Book’ (the full and official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy) in the course of a few years with great support and enthusiasm from the people. It was accomplished with comprehensive adult education and in the cases I know a number of people in each parish were asking for more at each step of the restoration process. The full Liturgy is still in the memory of most of our older people, so for them it is a return to what they had in childhood, and most often it sparks fond memories. I’ve seen the older people welcome Vespers and Matins when those services were celebrated roughly in the forms they remembered from the days before they were stopped. The point here is that it is far easier to restore something the people still hold in their collective memory, especially when the Church has offered prayer books with the same full text for the past 40 years. [There are still parishes that before the RDL were singing the “Hospodi pomiluj’s” for the little litanies between the antiphons. This indicates that there is still a memory of them, and even if not making the connection that the litany was there is very easy for people to make.]

Father Lance wrote: “The majority simply want their Blue Book Liturgy and Music back.”

This is precisely why one does not take away from people that which is perfectly acceptable. Respect what is good and already exists and build on it. This is where my restoration plan comes in. It is still not too late to implement it. (I use a 5-10 year time period but I’ve seen it done in as little as two years with great success. Ten years offers enough time to be very gentle.)

Liturgical Restoration Plan

Year 1
-Council of Hierarchs declares the official Ruthenian Recension as normative for the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in America.
-New editions of the 1964 ‘Red Book’ and the 1976 ‘Basil Book’ are printed. Changes are limited only to those changes that are absolutely necessary (to correct what is actually incorrect). [And all changes are offered with full explanation and time for anyone to comment.]
-A new edition of the 1979 Levkulic Pew Book is prepared. The major change to the liturgical text in the front of the book is to include the entire text Divine Liturgy (every litany, antiphons in full). Other changes are limited only to correct what is wrong (using the principle that the more the text is used (i.e., fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy) the less one allows change (changing the text of the Creed is far more annoying to the faithful than changing the text of a prokimenon for a minor feast).
-A new music book is prepared changing only what is absolutely necessary. Beyond the standard ‘gray’ and ‘green’ and ‘black’ book settings for the fixed text melodies parishes may return to the style they previously used for the changeable texts. Music for the changeable texts will also be published but should not be mandatory.
-Council of Hierarchs issues a directive that the normative style of celebration is the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, in full. Council of Hierarchs also issues authorized abbreviations. Roughly speaking in year one parishes would add back one missing element (for example, the litany after the Gospel). If the parish already had that they would add something else.
-The key to success is to light fires of enthusiasm among the clergy. This may be possible for the traditional Liturgy but we have seen there was no interest in the RDL. It will definitely be impossible with mandates, and when the clergy (and cantors) are excluded from the process.

Years 2-5 (or 2-10)
-Add back missing elements of the Divine Liturgy. Eventually the full Liturgy becomes the norm at all cathedrals and pro-cathedrals (I’d say no more than a 3-5 year restoration phase at cathedrals and pro-cathedrals). An authorized form of abbreviation remains but with each year or two more of the Liturgy is required.

-Vespers & Matins are reintroduced first at the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals (in their traditional form that older parishioners might remember). If they are well celebrated and well sung other parishes will want them. [And, most likely, they will spread first to the larger parishes and then to others.]

-Some parishes in areas that continue to loose population will continue to dwindle. For these parishes even simplified versions of prostopinje will be too complicated. The Melkite parish I worship at does not use the 8 Tone system for prokimney. They have one melody they use for everything (a very simply one). It works and the entire parish sings the prokimenon at the Liturgy. [This appears to be a hold over from the days when the parish was a mission, but it works for them.]

---------

I am certainly happy that there are some vocations coming from the Van Nuys Eparchy. Given that the number of people in greater Phoenix has quadrupled I am sure that there are enough people to form numerous mission parishes (there are plenty of Ruthenians and unchurched there who are not part of St. Stephen Pro-Cathedral). I pray there are active plans to serve these people.

I fully agree with Father John that we must be inviting and welcoming to anyone and everyone. I will note that some seem to equate those of us who support the official and full Divine Liturgy as seeking a restoration of ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Melkite parish I worship at is full of people of all different ethnicites, has as its staple a fairly full Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services, and is growing faster than any parish in the Ruthenian Church. [On a personal note, most who know me know that I am anything but a super-ethnic!] The rubrics and texts of the Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services are almost totally common across the Byzantine Churches, with the differences between recensions being fairly minor. It is the RDL that is ethnic. It establishes specific rubrics for one particular Church that differentiates it from other Byzantine Churches. It also promulgates ethnic Rusyn music and forbids non-Rusyn music from being used at the Divine Liturgy (see the front of the music Pew Book for the exact wording of the directive).

There is a way forward for the Ruthenian Church and it is easy to see, and we know from experience that it works. We have real examples of it working, and generating enthusiasm of the people. I continue to pray that the Council of Hierarchs rescinds the Revised Divine Liturgy and restores the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, hopefully according to the principles and steps offered in this post.

---------

Father Deacon Paul points out correctly that cantors are nearly as critical to the survival and growth of a Byzantine Church as are the clergy. He also notes that the majority of priests are celebrating the RDL. I suggest that he consider that there is the difference between the priests being under obedience and the cantors being volunteers. One priest I know told me that he was reminded by his bishop that retirement income is a gift from the bishop and not a right, and that those who are not obedient to the bishop will find themselves without retirement income. I will also suggest that many cantors are indeed qualified enough to realize that the Thompson settings are very problematic. Some do not want to be forced participants in hurting people (by forcing them to re-learn something they knew by heart that was perfectly good). On the larger front, there are numerous cantors who saw no reason for a mandated change in music. They have often spent decades memorizing the music they have come to know and love. No one asked them if they wanted a change. No one consulted them about the content of the change. They were simply handed new books and any questions they had were met with accusations of disobedience or musical stupidity on their part. Again, the only way to successfully accomplish change is to enlist the enthusiastic support of the people. Mandates don’t work.

---------

I spoke with someone who was in attendance there. He mentioned that there were a number of former Ruthenians there who are now part of the UGCC (enough so that someone chuckled that it was like a mini-reunion). Ironically, as ethnic as the Ukrainian Church is it is still far more welcoming to non-cradle, non-ethnics then is the Ruthenian Church. It seems that the biggest sin in the Ruthenian Catholic Church is wanting the Ruthenian Liturgy, whole and correct!

If everything was taken, 1.5 TO 2 hours. Most of our parishes are used to about an hour.

It all depends on the speed of the priest and the singing. Several parishes I know that celebrated the full Red Book [Ruthenian] Divine Liturgy on Sundays did so in about 65 minutes (omitting nothing), plus whatever length the homily was. No one was rushed, the singing was joyfully paced, and the Communion was done correctly (and on average 130 people took Communion each week).

The implementation of the RDL was a huge stress and a heartbreak for me. After the first Liturgy in which the RDL was used, I walked out and never looked back. I could have handled the new muzak, but it was the high-handed chopping and hacking of the text (especially the Litanies) which drove me mad.

The following Sunday, I checked in with the neighborhood OCA church, and found a home. After a forty day period of spiritual preparation, the Priest chrismated me. Nine of my former parish brothers and sisters have also come along. What most of us like best liturgically is that the full Liturgy is served all the time (e.g. the Third Litany, the Beatitudes, is never "suppressed.")

Another thing we all like, and frequently talk about, is that the great bugaboo of Papalism and control by the Vatican establishment is not hanging over us as a black cloud. And we get about as much Church Slavonic in the OCA as we did in the Ruthenian Church (a little bit every Sunday.)

In my initial hurt and frustration, I wrote the Metropolitan and the Passaic Eparch, and several others who were in on the formulation of the RDL, suggesting they resign their offices in disgrace. Perhaps I should now write and thank them for pushing me out the door.

The ones for whom I feel deeply are the faithful Priests who have labored two and three and even four decades, having offered the sacrifice of celibacy and economic hardship for the service of the Ruthenian Church. Now they must approach the end of their careers watching the Church they have served take an accelerated nosedive to oblivion. (You can't argue with the numbers...)

Ten years ago, my prescient old Priest told me that the "Byzantine Church" in America would be gone in 20 to 30 years. The immediate problem, as he had it figured, was the total lack of vocations due to the celibacy requirement and the demoralizing leadership situation in our Eparchy. It seemed pretty obvious to him that the coming spin-down and unwinding would result in the Papacy "regularizing" the Byzantine Church. In God's mercy, this dear old Priest was taken to Abraham's Bosom eight months before the RDL hit.

I will forever be thankful to have had a part in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church. It was magnificent while it lasted. May God now bless her in her present travail.

-- kyrill

John,

Your plan is very thoughtful and well proposed and is a good starting point.

Maybe the root of problem is that Ecclesiastical Offices and Commissions are very poor at "project management." Even the corporate world often fails in these undertakings. For those who do not know what project management is, it is the formulation, execution, and continuous monitoring of a project, be it a Liturgical change complete with publications and training, the building of a nuclear power plant, or a corporate change in software.

Regarding the execution of the RDL, the Metropolia actually broke new ground. The MCI website, the "It is Time for the Lord to Act" DVD and the Schola Cantorum DVD with the new music was very well done; the work at the parish level perhaps was lacking (especially coordination with the cantors.) The weakest point in the opinion of the RDL forum posters was the content of probably 65-75% of the changes.
Before your proposal could be successful the Metropolia will need to get much better at its project management, otherwise we will find that each parish will be at a different stage, and some will not even participate.

One of the other just criticisms was that there was not a partnership with the Ukrainians and the the ACROD. So now you have to increase your project management skills across three Churches.

'Tis certainly a colossal undertaking. I certainly would not want to be a Bishop. But then... with God all things are possible.

Your brother,
Fr. Deacon Paul

I stand corrected (that is why I used the term "possibly the only"...) that an "Alive in Christ" camp was conducted this year at the Mariapoch shrine by the Eparchy of Parma; prayers for its continued success. I didn't see anything mentioned on the Eparchial site of Van Nuys, but another is mentioned on the Archeparchial site. Prayers for its success as well.

I will stand by my suggestion to contact the founders of the Gallup outreach and the quite succesful camp they started (and later closed).

The last time I served the entire (including all of the little litanies, the litany of the catechumens, little litanies at the prayers of the faithful, etc.) according to the 1964 Liturgikon in a BCC parish it took about 80 minutes including the homily. I would hope we would be able to give the Lord an hour and a half on Sunday. If you added Psalm 33 and the Prayers after Communion it was right at about an hour and a half.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting immediately mandating a full celebration across the board of the 1964 (we've seen the effect of mandates); rather the ability to have access to a fuller liturgical celebration according to the Ruthenian Rescension than what is indeed mandated in the RDL would be a great start for many (along with resolution of music and language issues).

If I was in the BCC I would be all over your plan, John. Excellent work.
FDRLB

My experience is almost identical to yours--except I gave the RDL six months. It was a painful time in my life, but the Lord turned it into a great blessing!

S'nami Boh

I keep asking about the status of the Ruthenian Recension because there is no sense in pointing to it in the form of its Slavonic texts (Rome, 1942 etc.) or English translation (for the most part, the 1965 liturgicon, the "red book") if it is no longer relevant or does not have the status as the text of the liturgy proper to the Ruthenian churches. So, I ask of RDL supporters or those who understand its motivation and objectives: Is there acknowledged to be such a thing as "the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy" that needs to be restored, and if so, what is it?

Along the same lines I ask of the RDL supporters/apologists: What was gained or accomplished by the RDL that was not present before in the form of the Recension texts and the (for the most part) complete and faithful translation in English in the form of the 1965 liturgicon?

Putting it yet another way: As I trace the history of our asking Rome to research and restore our liturgical patrimony, to Tisserant's letter presenting the Recension texts, to Bishop Ivancho's efforts, to the 1965 liturgicon, I see consistency and continuity regarding the integrity of the text and rubrics set forth as the "authentic" Recension. Try as I might, I'm having great difficulty in seeing the RDL as a faithful representative of that tradition.

A note to the Administrator:

In the Liturgical Restoration Plan, you mention that "only what is wrong is to be changed." Who is to decide "only what is wrong?"

I thank Father David for his post.


The question is not “who is to decide ‘only what is wrong’” but ‘what is to decide ‘only what is wrong’”. The “what” is provided in objective standards, like those laid down in “Liturgiam Authenticam”:


The “what is to decide” are the principles of “rendering the original texts faithfully accurately into the vernacular language… translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.”

To this I have added only a call for pastoral sensitivity, meaning that a translation that has been long memorized that is perfectly good but could possibly be made more exact be left alone.

The objective standard that should be used by the Ruthenian Catholic Church is:

1. Completeness – Every word in the official Church Slavonic edition should be in the English edition. This is inclusive of liturgical texts and rubrics, forwards and indexes. Nothing should be added that is not a translation of the original Church Slavonic texts, except the approval and printing information.

2. Accuracy – Translations should “[render] the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language… translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.”

3. Pastoral Sensitivity – If the existing translation is memorized and is an acceptable translation, don’t change it.

There are numerous specific examples to explain how these principles are applied that could be offered but I will offer here only three for the sake of brevity:

1. In the Preparation “Gregory” was corrected to “George”. This is an example of correcting something inaccurate.

2. In the opening the deacon says “Blahoslovi Vladyko”. This was translated in the 1964 as “Master, Give the blessing”. The RDL gives “Reverend Father, give the blessing”. "Vladyko" does not translate as “Reverend Father”. This is an example of where the 1964 was correct and the 2007 RDL incorrect.

3. The English text of the Lord’s Prayer was not changed even though it could be more exact. This respects what is long known and memorized.

Note the example we see in the Orthodox Churches. The OCA just released an update to its translation of the Liturgy. My copy was “borrowed” almost as soon as I received it (so I cannot compare old and new right now) but a note in the front made clear that the new edition is almost identical to the old and only corrects a small number of mistakes. The Greek Archdiocese is in the middle of preparing exactingly accurate translations of its liturgical texts, and we see a deliberate progression towards restoring the full Liturgy.

If we also look at the Roman Catholic Church we see that they rejected much of the translation work of the 1990s and first years of this century because it was not literal and exact enough. They are now preparing new translations that are more literally faithful to the Latin normative texts.

Here is the very short summary for those readers who skipped to the end: "Start with the title page and translate every bloody word. Don't omit anything. Translate accurately (as literally accurate as is possible balanced only with elegance and pastoral sensitivity for what is memorized). When you get to the end stop. Don't add anything."

I am frequently accused on this Forum of not answering questions.

The question here remains "who" interprets or determines "what." We agree on the "what." I too favor faithful translations. However:
1) Liturgical texts are living language, designed for a worshipping community today.
2) Your answer about "what" makes a presumption that the written text of the 1941 Recension precedes all other considerations. In the 16th - 17th - 18th - 19th and up to the 20th century even there was a cultural presumption that the West was superior to the East. This caused tremendous damage to the Church. Presumptions can cause such damage. I do not share your presumption, but there is no way to argue about presumptions - that's why they are called "presumptions."
I would say that the answer to "who" is the legitimate authority of the Church. I await your answer.
3) Even your example about the translation of "Evlogeson, despota," (the Greek text gives lower case) is not as clear as you would wish. You say it "correctly" says "Master," but this is just a dictionary definition. (Yhe dictionary also gives "lord" as a translation of "despotes," and also explains it as the "normal form of address to bishops.") The word "Master" has a different range of meaning than the Greek "despotes." "Master" in English can mean a minor boy. Why not translate it completely accurately, "Despot, give the blessing." Of course, we will laugh and laugh and say "obviously" "despot" in English has acquired a different meaning than "despotes" in Greek. Obivously. Words do that. If you make a "romantic" presumption, then you might say that "Master" refers to the Christ role of the bishop (priest). But Christ was also called "Lord, (Kurios)" and "Rabbi." I submit that the Greeks said "despota" because that was the ordinary polite term, and that the most equivalent, accurate and literal translation would be "Sir, bless." However, then we can argue about elegance "unto ages of ages." "Father" has become an ordinary polite address for priests today, but "Father" was not used in general for secular priests until quite late. Today, people who have trouble with the Catholic culture will call me "sir," in politeness, but Catholics (and Orthodox) today would use "Father."

Thank you, Father David. May God bless and protect you, give you happiness, and a continuing fruitful ministry.

-Pustinik
------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov

etc.


Two points:

(1) An actual dictionary definition of master:

link

I submit that the English term "Master" fits well the intended purpose on the basis of dictionary English and that the (archaic) meaning is little used and is hardly a source of confusion or a convincing reason for not using "master" according to its primary meanings.

(2) If I am to believe all the arguments and reasoning against the translation of vladyko/despota as master (as in the above quote and its fuller context) when addressed to the priest, then why does the RDL translation -- its translators or promulgators -- have no problem at all in consistently translating the same designation vladyko/despota when it is used as an address for God, as "Master"?

One brings up an obscure meaning of master ("a minor boy") as a translation of vladyko/despota against using it as an address for the priest despite its primary meanings, yet does not have a problem with using it, master, as a translation of the same term, vladyko/despota, as an address for God, which isn't even in the realm of a common dictionary appellation. Yet somehow the latter is clear and acceptable and the former not???

I find it hard to accept this as a reasonable, scholarly basis for explaining the inconsistent translation of this term, vladyko/despota, as in the RDL. Surely there must be something better and more substantial as a basis for the RDL usages.

The use of "Master" in the prayer texts of the Liturgy as opposed to titles for priests deserves more time than I can give at the present. I would hold that there is a difference of context and of resonances in Scripture translation here.
I was using the equivalents of "despotes" as found in a Greek-English dictionary. Deacon Anthony's use of an English dictionary for the meaning of "Master," seems to me to support my idea that the "range of meaning" of the Englsih word "Master" is quite different than the Greek word "despotes," though they may intersect on some points. At any rate, we do not usually call our priests, "Master," but we call them "Father."
But call them anything you wish. I hold with my dear departed mother, who said, "Call me anything you want, but don't call me late for dinner."

The Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon has listed first: "master, lord" for despotes noting explicitly the vocative form despota. link

For despota itself, William J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar link : "1. master, lord"

The RDL choice of honorifics-by-choice instead of translation-of-text is to me a clear instance of blatant eisegesis.

Things are different within the context of the liturgy itself. I can't recall an instance where I have ever consistently kissed a man's hand or walked around wearing a stole or preceded a request to be attentive with the word "Wisdom" or ...



Blithely said and would that it were possible -- that issue of obedience (the sole text of the 2007 liturgicon).

Apart from the sheer wordiness of the chosen honorifics and poor judgment regarding respect for the received texts, there is to me the more important aspect of a capricious altering of the intent of an important rhetorical aspect of the liturgy, which goes to its integrity. Consider, as I have posted previously link :


And the reply:



I can only comment again regarding the Chrysostom Liturgy: "What surprised me is that he [Fr. David] agrees with my analysis about reserving the use of the direct address of "Father." Why then should we use it in the translation so (seemingly) indiscriminately?"

Should we not want to be diligent here and respect the text and its structure, especially when the solution, the perfectly acceptable understanding of "master" in both the source and receptor languages, should be a no-brainer? I have to wonder why translators would need to create an issue where none need exist. Who really objects to translating despota/vladyko as "Master"?

I believe that this is a just criticism. Father David has been asked some very important questions. His failure to respond to these questions gives credence that the revisions he supports are not defensible and are, indeed, mostly nothing more than personal preference. He has been asked numerous times to delineate exactly what is so flawed about the official 1942 Ruthenian recension that it cannot be allowed to serve as the normative standard for the Ruthenian Church in America. He has yet to answer this (and other) questions.


One look at the RDL indicates that some of the text is not a translation (faithful or otherwise) of the official Church Slavonic text normative for the Ruthenian recension. We have already discussed that “Reverend Father” is not a translation for “Vladyko” but rather an entirely different text altogether. So we have right off a case that is not a “faithful translation” that Father David states he favors. There are other cases that could be listed. Using the RDL changed texts and rubrics (changed from the official 1942 edition) as evidence I suggest that Father David (and/or the Commission) disagrees with the “what” as well. He has openly rejected “Liturgiam Authenticam,” which calls for literal accuracy and completeness in translation. While he can rightly argue that the specifics of LA are those from the Latin Church’s Liturgy the principles given (accuracy and completeness in translation free from agendas) are surely universal.


Liturgical texts are not a “living language,” and they are not “designed for a worshipping community today.” Instead, as wisely stated in Liturgiam Authenticam, #19, “they express truths that transcend the limits of time and space. Indeed, by means of these words God speaks continually with the Spouse of his beloved Son, the Holy Spirit leads the Christian faithful into all truth and causes the word of Christ to dwell abundantly within them, and the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she herself is and all that she believes, even as she offers the prayers of all the faithful to God, through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit.” It is not right to simply change the texts to conform to the desires of each generation."

We see further in LA, Section #20: “In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts … is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.” It is very clear that the Church calls for a full and accurate translation of the official texts into (for us in America) standard vernacular English. Standard vernacular English does not include politically correct forms, as we find with the political agenda of gender neutral language. LA is specific on this point (see sections 30 & 31).


Yes, the 1941/1942 official Church Slavonic text is the normative text for the Ruthenian recension. There is no question here. Previous generations of Ruthenians requested that Rome prepare these official texts. Rome has been directing us to use them (as they are given) ever since, with each succeeding generation of bishops refusing to do so. One might argue that there are problems with part or all of the Ruthenian recension, but as it is normative for the entire Ruthenian recension anyone who wishes to change it needs to follow the directives given in the Liturgical Instruction to accomplish that change. I’ve referenced them more specifically in other posts, but section 21 is very specific that we are to work together with other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) to accomplish any desired change. A logical application of these directives would be that change to elements unique to the Ruthenian recension should be changed by all the members of the Ruthenian recension working together, paying close attention to what is happening in the larger Byzantine Church. Changes to elements common to all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) should be changed by all Byzantines, working together. “In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.” (from section #21) The goal here is that someday when full communion is established between East and West we will already be liturgically and spiritually identical to not just our fellow Byzantine Catholics but also our Orthodox brothers.


If this includes all appeals including those to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, then I can agree. In “Summorum Pontificum” Pope Benedict guaranteed the right of the Latin Catholic faithful to an extraordinary form of the Roman Mass. I have no doubt that he will also guarantee the right of the priests and lay faithful of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America to the complete and official texts and rubrics normative to the Ruthenian recension as promulgated at Rome (1942 for the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, and the other official books as well).

Pope Benedict XVI was quite clear in the opening of “Summorum Pontificum”:

A very direct application of this principle is easy to make. The Ruthenian Catholic Church in America “must concur with the universal [Byzantine and Byzantine-Ruthenian] Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.'”


Translate the term “Vladyko” literally and precisely from the Slavonic, not the Greek. As you have pointed out, the English term “despot” does not carry the same meaning as “despotes” in Greek. Technically, if it were a literally accurate translation of "Vladyko" there would be nothing wrong with using it, but it would require much education. The translation given in the 1964 is “Master” is a correct and acceptable translation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this term. The term is employed in the majority of translations of Byzantine Liturgicons (Catholic and Orthodox) translated into English. There was no need to change it. “Reverend Father” is unacceptable because it is not a translation but rather a revision. Using it violates the objective standard of literal translation.

Liturgiam Authenticam addresses this quite well:

Translations should “[render] the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language… translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.” The use of “Reverend Father” for “Vladyko” violates any objective rule of translation.

Now if Father David were to complain that “Master” is not in ordinary use I will point out again that all changes should be done across the entire Byzantine Church. But before that I would recommend again the passages in LA that speak to educating the faithful to raise them up so that they can understand the texts of the Divine Liturgy rather than revise the Divine Liturgy to accommodate street vernacular (the latter to include politically correct language).

I've been meaning to point out another apparently unacceptable address for the priest as witnessed by the translation in the the RDL (found also in the Passaic liturgicon). Apparently this change in the status or perception of the priest happened after 1965 for it is still found in that liturgicon; it is also found in the Ruthenian Recension text (Sluzhebnik and Archieratikon), the Vulgata text, the 1950 Greek text; but not in the RDL.

It occurs after the Great Entrance at the end of a dialog between the priest and concelebrant(s) with the deacon alone asking, "Remember me, holy Master." (1965 liturgicon translation).

Like anthropous/chelovik/men in the Creed, this is another example of the amazing disappearing word act in the RDL: hagie/sjavtij/holy. Of course "holy Reverend Father" or "holy Most Reverend Bishop" is certainly a bit much. And God forbid that even in this dialog that is usually outside the hearing of the people, the deacon should give expression to the proper stature of the priest, and the priest should be reminded of it, hear and be reminded of his sacred character as priest: not reverend but holy.

Apparently the "ordinary" address of Reverend Father (and really the "reverend" part isn't ordinary) is more important than the "holy" or for some reason addressing the priest as "holy" is just too much to bear. Or embarrassing? Goodness, what would someone hearing the priest addressed as "holy Master" think. Fr. David says "call them anything you wish" and the RDL responds, but not "holy."

Having a common designation -- and in translation "master" certainly does the job -- gets the emphasis of the liturgy right: not Reverend this or Most Reverend that, or Bishop or Presbyter or Metropolitan but THE PRIEST, the HOLY Master who offers and leads the offering of the liturgy wherein the Lord, Who is Holy (Lev. 19:2) and Master (Jud. 1:4; Rev. 6:10), acts.

Reading John’s remarks, I can only say that I am diametrically, completely, absolutely and totally in disagreement with everything that he has said or implied.

To wit:
John said: “He (that is, me, Father David) has been asked numerous times to delineate exactly what is so flawed about the official 1942 Ruthenian recension that it cannot be allowed to serve as the normative standard for the Ruthenian Church in America.”

The Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm. It is John who interprets this as only an absolute literal correspondence. The Oriental Congregation, the caretakers of this norm, do not use “absolute literal correspondence” as the standard and have judged the 2007 translation to be in conformity as regards pastoral practice.

John said:
“Liturgical texts are not a “living language,” and they are not “designed for a worshipping community today.”

This is the worst theology I have heard on this issue yet. There is no reason why eternal truths cannot be expressed in living language understandable by the people. It is we who must pray these truths. If something cannot be expressed in a living language, then it is not an eternal truth.
LA is simply warning about being too colloquial.

John said:
“One might argue that there are problems with part or all of the Ruthenian recension, but as it is normative for the entire Ruthenian recension anyone who wishes to change it needs to follow the directives given in the Liturgical Instruction to accomplish that change.”

John’s imterpretations of the Liturgical Instruction are simply too literalist. They are not the only interpretation, nor even those of the legislators.

John said:

“If this includes all appeals including those to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, then I can agree.”

Then you do not accept the present situation, but only a future situation that you think is necessary.


John quoted Benedict XVI:
“ ... as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition ... “

Any church that would not accept the usages of “uninterrupted apostolic tradition ... “ would be in schism. Uninterrupted apostolic tradition would include the praying of an anaphora, the breaking of bread, the distribution of Holy Communion. There is nothing, and I emphasize nothing, in the 2007 translation that violates “uninterrupted apostolic tradition.” If there is, then the Roman Church that approved it is also in schism.

John said:
“Translate the term “Vladyko” literally and precisely from the Slavonic, not the Greek.”

Why??? Do we make up rules and principles as we go along? The original of the Liturgy is Greek and we have translated from Greek. A translation from Slavonic would bring about the same result. The explanation I gave stands. Your explanation is simply too literalistic.

The "Oriental Congregation". That cracks me up. I think of Latin bishops eating wonton soup and egg rolls on their lunch hour. Why does this "congregation" even exist if the Catholic church is 22 churches of equal dignity?

As far as Father David's comment of the 1942 liturgicon he says:

"The Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm. It is John who interprets this as only an absolute literal correspondence. The Oriental Congregation, the caretakers of this norm, do not use “absolute literal correspondence” as the standard and have judged the 2007 translation to be in conformity as regards pastoral practice."

So Rome speaks with forked tongue? There's a standard, but do what you want anyway? We usually sit, but it's okay to stand on your head if you want to?

Good luck and continued prayers for the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church of America.

Father David is incorrect in stating that it is only me who interprets the 1942 as the absolute literal norm. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church – including the eparchies in America – restated their support for the official Ruthenian liturgical books at their Synod of Bishops which was held in September 2006. In the Resolutions from that Synod we find support and reinforcement for the common, literal standard for the Ruthenian Churches:


The Ukrainians are using official editions as their standard, and preparing translations into Ukrainian from that standard. Carpatho-Rusyins in Europe are reprinting the official books (since they are out of print) and are using them as a literal standard, and the goal to which the celebration of the Liturgy should be raised up to. If we look at the Roman Catholic Church we see that they have a single Latin edition of the Mass and are insisting that it be followed literally, with translations that are complete and accurate.

If one acknowledges a specific edition as normative then one should treat it as normative, as the standard from which exact and complete translations are prepared. When one does not treat the normative standard as a normative standard then one does not accept it as such.

The universal truths are expressed in the official texts of the Liturgy. For Ruthenians this is the 1942 Slavonic edition. Translations from this standard are to be literal and accurate. My points are all taken from Liturgiam Authenticam, so Father David’s disagreement is really with that directive. I refer readers to the relevant excerpts from my previous posts in the current discussions.


I disagree. The Liturgical Instruction is very clear. It cannot be interpreted to mean anything the reformers wish it to mean. It calls for restoration of official forms before updating. It calls for change to be accomplished together with other Byzantines and the Orthodox. There is no other way to interpret this but to restore to official forms before updating, and to update only together with other Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox.


Yes, I do not accept the present situation. I work toward the restoration of the Ruthenian recension as promulgated by Rome in the official and normative Slavonic editions for the Ruthenian recension. I know it works because I have seen it work. I believe the Council of Hierarchs to have made a mistake with the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy. I have asked them to rescind it and am following the appeal process. I am confident that the right of the clergy and the laity to the official and normative forms of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (i.e., the 1942 and other editions) will be upheld. Summorum Pontificum speaks to the extraordinary form of the Latin Mass:

If Pope Benedict XVI has guaranteed the right of the Latin Catholic faithful to an older form the of the Mass of the Latin Church surely he will also guarantee the right of the Ruthenian Catholic faithful to the current, official and normative form of the Byzantine-Divine Liturgy, both in Slavonic and in translation.


The Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America currently prohibits the celebration of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the official and normative form that is “universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition”. The Ruthenian Catholic Church of Pittsburgh does not “concur with the universal [Byzantine] Church.” I am not sure why Father David would see this as a matter of schism. It appears to be a simple mistake.


Why? Because the official and normative text for the Ruthenian recension is in Slavonic. The older Slavonic forms and the Greek recension texts would surely be useful to understand the nuance of the Slavonic text but it is the Slavonic text that is official and which must be translated accurately and literally.

I am not sure what Father David means by “making up rules and principles as we go along”. The basic principle is to respect the official forms laid down by the universal Church (for us the 1942 Slavonic Ruthenian Liturgicon and other official books); to translate them faithfully (literally, balanced with elegance and respect for what is memorized), completely (without additions or subtractions). The principle applies universally, and is the only one I have advocated all along. This principle is put forth in great detail in Liturgicam Authenticam and (ore generally) elsewhere, including the Liturgy Instruction. Rejecting this principle only succeeds in causing great harm to the Church, as we can see in the great harm done to the Ruthenian Church with the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy.

It is a relief that Fr. David writes that the "Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm." The problem is that it does not seem to be treated as the norm, even if one does not take into account the abridgment of this norm in the form of the RDL. Just considering what's left, there are changes that do not fall under the blanket coverage of "pastoral practice" and are beyond the charge of nitpicking literalism. The difference in the Foreword/Preface of the 2007 vs. 1965 liturgicons immediately raises the question of the real status of the Recension as the norm.

So I asked about the status and for clarification of the stated considerations that went into the RDL, 5/29/07.

And again 5/31/07 .

And again and again ...
7/24/07
7/31/07
8/2/07
8/21/07
5/19/08
5/20/08
6/24/08
6/27/08
6/30/08

Since the questions I have asked (paki i paki) were researched and debated for twelve years I would have expected -- hoped -- that answers would be readily available and forthcoming.

The Gallup outreach was indeed closed by Bishop William. With the promulgation of the RDL by Bishop William prior to its required formal promulgation, members of the Gallup outreach who organized the entire retreat (with the approval of the vocation director of the Eparchy) requested that the RDL not be used at the retreat--certainly there was no need at an all male retreat for so called "inclusive language" --i.e. an inauthentic Creed. In response, the RDL, we were told through the Bishop's representative, was going to be show-cased at the Alive in Christ retreat in the summer of 2007. The organizers of the retreat and members of the Gallup outreach and one member of Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish unanimously decided that we could not be supportive of the RDL especially for a vocation retreat for young men. When we communicated with the Bishop that we would no longer host the retreat, he immediately closed down the outreach and requested that any liturgical items be returned to him. Since I was the only official Byzantine in Gallup, I moved because I could no longer justify driving two hours for a distorted Liturgy.

Interestingly enough, the mandate for the anaphora said aloud was not fitting to the Gallup area. The Navajo Indians were far more accustomed to their medicine men saying prayers silently--this information comes from an old Franciscan priest who spoke Navajo and Latin fluently and said that the Navajo never had any serious problems with the traditional Roman Mass. Indeed, he had many Navajo's chanting the the Creed in Latin at his very beautiful Novus Ordo mission near the reservation.



This is a little misleading. In the parish in Albuquerque, the "Red book" was used. There were certain practices (anaphora said aloud) which were taken and other good things like infant communication. There is no hard evidence that demonstrates that the anaphora said aloud was the cause of the success of the parish. Rather, the Roman Diocese of Albuquerque was rather dismal liturgically. The Byzantine parish in Albuquerque offered an orthodox alternative to the Roman Rite there. The parish was full of Roman Rite Catholics as were many of the parishes in the Eparchy of the Van Nuys.

The RDL has now taken the "orthodox" element out of the Ruthenian Church. I predicate that after an older generation of priests moves on, a younger generation (few as they will be) will be ready and waiting to take the Ruthenian Church back to its true tradition just as is occurring in the Roman Rite with the release of the extraordinary form.

Having left Gallup, I now have, through God's good graces, at least nine months out of the year, a weekly Divine Liturgy through the Ukranians in a place even more remote than Gallup. By all accounts, the Liturgy and orthodoxy in my new home will flourish. Indeed several Ruthenians have visited here with the thought of relocating.