"Finally, the changes were not made to make our liturgy 'more like the Roman Mass,' but rather less like it and more like our authentic tradition. Just as the Roman tradition has 'Liturgiam Authenticam,' the Byzantine tradition has 'Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.' One of the principles set forth in that document is that when our practices deviate from those of our Orthodox brothers, then we should conform to the Orthodox tradition. This is to witness to the fullness of faith found within the Catholic tradition."
http://www.zenit.org/article-23576?l=english



Fr. Deacon Robert,

With all of the focus on what is not liked about the RDL it is often forgotten that:

The Third Antiphon/Beatitudes are restored.
The Verses of the Prokimenon and Alleluiarion are restored.
The Filioque is eliminated.
The Teplota is restored.
The Ablutions are restored to their proper place.

All things that do conform us more to Orthodox usage.

While, I would acknowledge that eliminating the Little Litanies is unique to us and ACROD, the elimination of the Litanies of the Catechumens and Faithful as well as the First Aitesis are common enough among the Orthodox that our doing so is not beyond the pale.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr.Deacon,

I have shown the text of the RDL to a few Eastern Orthodox priests in my area.
The points which I have brought up, such as the change in the Creed, the inclusive language, and the "always and everywhere" at the elevation of the Gifts, are the biggest irritants to them (and to me). One retired OCA priest defends their use of Elizabethan English as a means of having a "sacral" language, i.e., a language of the official prayer of the Church which is not the language spoken in the street. I like that attitude.

Dn. Robert

Fr. Deacon Robert,

I think we forget that Aramaic and Koine Greek were languages spoken in the street.

Fr. Deacon Lance

An example in the OCA at the elevation: "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee, in behalf of all and for all"

A special abridged liturgicon (aka the RDL) was not needed to accomplish this; all this and more was possible and available in the 1965 liturgicon.

I'm beginning to have doubts about the precision of the ablution inferences that have been made (here and elsewhere). The Ordo specifies that for two deacons, the second does the ablution immediately after transference of the holy cup and diskos to the proskomedia table, reference §162, 163.

Father Deacon Lance,

The Revised Divine Liturgy restores none of the items you listed. They can all be found in the 1964 edition (commonly known as the “Red Book”).

• On pages 19 and 20 you can find the Third Antiphon. It is true that a typo puts the text of the Third Antiphon in the wrong place (before the doxology on page 19) but at the top of page 20 you will find the rubric directing the Third Antiphon or the Beatitudes.
• On page 22 you will find the reference to the “Prokimen”. Also on page 22 you will find the rubric for the “Alleluia (with verses)”. (Specific verses are not included in the Liturgicon.)
• On page 22 the Filioque is in parenthesis indicating it is optional.
• On page 41 you will find the rubrics for the teplota.
• On page 45 you will find the rubric for the ablutions. It directs the deacon to perform the ablutions just after the Ambon Prayer.

So we can see quite clearly that all of the items on your list were already present in the 1964 edition of the Liturgicon. The RDL most definitely does not restore any of the practices you list. They were already there. No other Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction prohibits the Little Litanies or mandates the reduction of the Litany for the Catechumens, or prohibits the petitions associated with the Litanies for the Faithful. There are parishes that do take them. There is a difference between making a prayer optional and prohibiting a prayer by removing it from the book!

I’ve noted earlier that the standard Pew Book used in most of our parishes prior to the RDL mandate was the edition prepared by Msgr. Levkulic. It contained the traditional three verses of the First and Second Antiphons. My former parish had a “paste-in” with the Third Antiphon (with the traditional three verses) and the Beatitudes that date back to the early 1980s (a number of other parishes also had similar “paste-ins”). The Levkulic Pew Book also provided the verses of the Prokimenon and the Alleluia, so they have been there for the taking.

A reprint of the Liturgicons (Chrysostom and Basil) could have corrected a few translation and grammatical errors and the typos. A reprint of the Levkulic Pew Book could have restored what was missing and corrected some errors. A new music book could also have been prepared, respecting what was memorized. This could easily have been accomplished in a way that offended no one. There was no need whatsoever to reform the Divine Liturgy, to reject the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam, or to force new texts and music upon a people that had already memorized text and music that were perfectly acceptable. Getting the clergy to observe the rubrics accurately is a different question. I have already suggested that the answer to that question is in education, example and encouragement.

I could comment on the Zenit article but for now will only state that the Byzantine deacon who provided information provided to Zenit provided inaccurate information. There is nothing in the RDL (that is not already possible with the 1964) that brings us into closer practice with the Orthodox. That claim has been made here by some supporters and has been clearly shown to be false.

John

Fr. Deacon,

I would agree, but that does not detract from the fact that the RDL does contain elements that bring us into conformity with the Orthodox usage.

As to the ablution, the same Ordo specifies that with one deacon serving, the deacon consumes the Holy Gifts after the Ambon Prayer and Prayer for Consuming the Holy Gifts. With two deacons serving, the second deacon immediately consumes because he is not needed on the Ambon for the Litany of Thanksgiving or the "Let us pray" for the Ambon Prayer. Notice that the Prayer for Consuming the Holy Gifts is movable coming immediately after the transfer of the Holy Gifts to the Prothesis when two deacons are serving, after the Ambon Prayer if one deacon is serving, and either not at all or after the dismissal if only a priest is serving, because the Ordo does not mention the prayer in this situation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

John,

I am aware they appear in the 65 Liturgicon. They were however not widely practiced. Some were forbidden or mandated as the hierach saw fit and the Ordo and 65 Liturgicon allowed this. Here I am refering to the Filioque (mandated), Teplota (forbidden) and Ablutions (mandated taken during May Our lips be filled).

The RDL makes it clear the Filioque is deleted, the Teplota taken and the Ablutions taken as originally intended. I think it is completely honest to say elements of the RDL are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Gentlemen:

I am not at all sure what this is. (In the back of my mind I'm thinking it is the zeon, i.e. hot water, but I've never heard this word 'Teplota' before.) Pardon my ignorance.

Fr David Straut

Fr. David,

You got it. Teplota is the Slavonic term for Zeon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

Yes, I'm aware of this and it goes to my point. How can it be an abuse or latinization to consume at a time that is preferred as evidenced when there are two deacons? The second deacon is not directed to wait for the later time -- that is just a matter of necessity/practicality to keep things moving when there's only one deacon.

I'm all for following the Ordo and the rubrics of the Služebnik (accurately rendered in the 1965 liturgicon as a matter of translation). At this point the RDL is a hodgepodge of the one and two deacon rubrics from the Ordo and Recension Služebnik rubrics, with some other stuff added that isn't in either, and yet other rubrics in the Recension omitted.

I had thought that our mandate was to follow and preserve our heritage, and that our Recension did that and insured an authentic rite, one that therefore was as "Orthodox" as any of the multitude of legitimate variations found among Orthodox Churches. If we don't preserve our rite by observing it, who is expected to do it for us -- the Greeks, Russians, Melkites...? Rather, they are properly attending to their own, and we are left to continued delays and diversions.

Father Deacon Lance,

The fact that some of the rubrics you listed were not followed correctly was not the fault of the 1942 or 1964 Liturgicons. It was the fault of formation. That these rubrics are retained in the 2007 Revised Liturgicon in no way restores them. The very same priests who did not use teplota still do not use teplota. The very same priests who did the ablutions during “May our lips be filled” still do the ablutions at that time during the Liturgy. And – surprise – almost all of the clergy still use pre-cut particles! There is no way anyone can honestly state that the RDL restores these practices. It does not take a Revised Liturgcion to get priests to take what is already in the Liturgicon. It takes proper formation and patience. Education, example, and encouragement are the way forward.

As I have stated numerous times, there was absolutely no need to revise the Divine Liturgy to restore correct praxis on the elements you listed. A reprint of the Levkulic Pew Book could easily have added the missing litanies and the Third Antiphons and Beatitudes, as well as remove the filioque. The verses to the Prokimeny and Alleluia were already there. The 1964 Liturgicon already had correct rubrics on the teplota and the ablutions. It should be clear to all that there was no need to revise the Liturgy to restore these elements.

You wrote: “I think it is completely honest to say elements of the RDL are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.”

Of what use is this statement? Again, which elements of the RDL move us into conformity with Orthodox usage where the 1964 does not? Why was it not possible to restore these elements with proper formation with the 1964 Liturgicion? It is equally correct to state about these very same elements: ”I think it is completely honest to say elements of the 1964 are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.” And such a statement would actually mean something since most see the 1964 as replacing the Lvov Liturgicon which was highly abbreviated.

The Revised Divine Liturgy of 2007 needs to be rescinded. What is needed is a reprint of the 1964 with only the necessary corrections to make it an accurate translation of the 1942 official Ruthenian Slavonic edition. The 2007 RDL is not a complete and faithful translation of the 1942. The 2007 RDL violates both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgicam Authenticam.

John

Fr. Deacon,

I never thought it a big deal myself, but Fr. Serge feels it is a major Latinization. In anycase it does conform to Orthodox usage.

As to your second question I think an American Byzantine usage related to but not exactly the same as the Ruthenian Recension has been and is still evolving. The RDL is a stage in that evolution. That is the way of things as I see it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

John,

I am not saying (and did not say) that the RDL was needed to do these things, but the fact remains the RDL does contain these elements. One difference, however, is the 64 Liturgicon was printed with no intention of it ever being used as it was by the hierarchs involved. The hierarchs involved with the 06 Liturgicon actually want to see some conformity with Orthodox usage. Ultimately, as you say, each priest ultimately does as he wishes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I was under the impression that every priest in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy is now under the threat of pension loss if they did not follow the RDL to the letter. How are varations allowed?

How is there conformity with Orthodox usage when inclusive language is used?

The hierarchs want conformity with the Orthodox? How about the churches that still don't have icon screens? They should be installed with diocese money if the parish can't afford it.

A new liturgy is mandated, but the priest can use pre cut particles instead of performing a proper proskomedia?

Vespergy instead of Saturday Vespers?

Please! The RDL has done nothing to even pretend to conform to Orthodoxy.

Fr. Deacon,

Today, Aramaic is considered to be "endangered" in terms of modern usage. But, it is used liturgically by the Maronites. Koine Greek is used liturgically by the Greek Orthodox Church, and by Catholic Eastern Churches of Greek usage. In Greek Orthodoxy, modern Greek is banned from use in the Liturgy (per Wikipedia). The use of "dead" or, in the case of Aramaic, "near dead" languages, in Liturgy, in addition to having an ethos of sacrality, provides the benefit of an inbuilt protection against ambiguities and heretical mistranslations which can occur with ongoing re-translations into common modern parlance. "Dead" language liturgical translations can be used as a point of reference for theological instruction. This was always the argument for retaining Latin in the Western Liturgy. With Elizabethan English being a "near dead" usage, the same argument can be made for using it liturgically. It is highly unlikely that understanding of the meaning of words used in Elizabethan English will "evolve" as is the case with modern English words. Just my two cents.

Dn. Robert

I was under the impression that every priest in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy is now under the threat of pension loss if they did not follow the RDL to the letter. How are varations allowed?

Etnick,

If priests are now being threated with reprisals for refusing to serve the RDL, who will serve these parishes in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy? Are we to assume that we will be served only by Roman Bi-Ritual priests now? Oy Vay, indeed!

Ung

Pensions? You have to be retired to get a pension, don't you? Retired priests?? In the Pittsburgh Archeparchy??

Is this threat hearsay, or do you have something to back it up?

Fr Deacon Paul

Aramaic is still spoken in the street, although in very few places! Where it remains in popular use, it's also called Sureth.

Koine I'm not so sure about - it seems to have been a quasi-artificial form of "commercial Greek" used in the Mediterranean world, which is probably why it was used for the New Testament - so that people in the Mediterranean world could read it with relative fluency. In the street, though, people (many of whom could not read at all) would have spoken the local variety of Greek.

Aramaic is still used liturgically by the Chaldeans, the Nestorians, and to some extent the Syro-Malabarese. The Syro-Malabarese would have little or no understanding of it; the Chaldeans and Nestorians who remain on their native heaths would have a reasonable understanding. There are a very few places (Ma'aloula comes to mind) where the Greek-Catholics make some liturgical use of Aramaic - these are places where Aramaic is spoken to some extent.

Aramaic is also used by the Syrian Catholic Church and the non-Chalcedonian Syrian Orthodox Church.

Modern Greek culture is negative about using modern Greek liturgically for several reasons - one of which is that there are still several forms of "modern" Greek, even in Greece itself. Another is that trying to translate the service-books (including poetic material written for Byzantine metre) into "modern" Greek is a daunting idea. In addition, Christian Greece are very proud that the New Testament is written in Greek, and are not anxious to reject it.

For all the claims that Elizabethan/Jacobean English is dead or "near dead", the King James Bible rolls along, outselling all the "modern" translations - the bulk of the English-speaking Christian population seems happy with it. There are some individual words and turns of phrase in the King James Bible which are a challenge, but most of it can be read with good comprehension by any high school graduate.

By no coincidence at all, every now and then somebody will produce yet another attempt to rewrite Shakespeare in "modern" English - it flops; most people who like Shakespeare like the original.

Fr. Serge

Out with modernity!

Dn. Robert

Originally posted by Father Deacon Lance:


I challenge this only because it is an assertion so often made that it risks being taken as a truism.

It is true that common people spoke Aramaic and Koine Greek. What is NOT true is that the writings of the New Testament are the same kind of Greek that was spoken in the streets.

I have read Xenophon's Anabasis (early Helenistic) and parts of Plato's Dialogues (Attic), and copies of non-literary papyri (real street Greek), as well as most of the New Testament. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that most of the New Testament is written in a form of Koine Greek which is somewhere in between the classical Attic dialect and the papyri. It is really unique in Greek literature because it is so deeply Hebraic in it's phraseology, syntax, and figures of speech, and not only when the writers are quoting the Septuagint. Yet it frequently rises to levels of poetry that educated Greeks are justly proud of to this day.

If then our liturgical language is to be faithful to it's ultimate Source, the Holy Bible, it ought not to be in the colloquial vernacular of our age - let alone in what George Orwell famously called "Newspeak" - but in a moderately elevated, distinctly biblical (Hebraic), and poetic diction that will endure "from generation to generation."

This means a distinctly liturgical English, the sacred form of our language associated with Holy Scripture and prayer. The model is the traditional version of the Lord's Prayer. Fine exemplars already exist in Isabel Hapgood's pioneering translation, in the service books of the Antiochian Archdiocese, the OCA, ROCOR, and others; as well as in Arcbishop JOSEPH (Raya's) revised translation of the Divine Liturgy published in 2000.

This heritage of biblical / liturgical English is already part of all of us who speak English. The "sacral" form of our language will, I am persuaded, ultimately win the battle for the hearts and minds of Christians in all English-speaking countries.

I agree; I have argued this point before: link1, link2, link3.

Also, thanks for the additional references and your appraisal.

My point is the Apostles could have kept everything in Hebrew, their sacral language, they did not. SS. Cyril and Methodius could have simply taught the Slavs Greek, they did not. Thankfully the Church has not followed the lead of King James only-Protestants. It is the Liturgy that sanctifies the language, not the language that sanctifies the Liturgy. ANd no I don't think we should use slang or excessively dumbed-down language. But the language style of the RSV/NAB/JB is fine in my opinion and obviuosly that of the Church.

I disagree. After living with the RDL for more than a year, I still think it plays out badly in our beloved Divine Liturgy. It sounds bad, it's bad English and it takes away from the poetic nature of our Liturgy.

Our Liturgy is supposed to transcend us from our Earthly Cares -- instead, our noses are rubbed in it -- and boy does it stink!

Isabel Hapgood's Service Book is now over a hundred years old - and has done the Church good service; to this day there are still a few things that are best found in Hapgood.

However, I would suggest that she was far too enamoured of Anglicanism (she was an Anglican) in her choice of language, her use of the Psalms, etc. - I'm being unfair, since we have a greater range of choice available than she did.

About ten years before Hapgood, that Greek-English Service Book that Eastern Christian publications has just reprinted appeared - it's also quite useful, and if one looks carefully, one realizes that it is the "Mother text" for several widespread English translations of the twentieth century.

Fr. Serge

A valid point. My comment was in the context of the links I provided and the thread where they are posted. There, as elsewhere, a phenomenon occurs common to justifications of the RDL: an assertion is made as though certain and universally accepted that corroborates the RDL translation, when in fact there are significant issues not mentioned that weaken or even contradict the assertion.

Thus the Koine/street-language argument. Another previously encountered: that the Greek anthropos does not have a male-only/male-and-female ambiguity as does the English man, which was easily demonstrated to be incorrect by instances of use in scripture (One finds this latter incorrect assertion also on the DVD produced by the Metropolia). Another is the necessity and approach to "inclusivity" without any tangible indication of who proposed it and its factual basis.

I believe there are many other questionable explanations and "facts" that are the foundation of issues and motivations that resulted in the RDL. Some have been raised on this forum and elsewhere; there are others.

The lack of response or indicated concern or clarification or dialog from the Metropolia seems to arise from a position of totalitarianism on this issue. Obedience is invoked but too often against the wrong people. As the father of a family I have often cited to my children the validity of the principle of RHIP, rank has its privileges; but I am then also quick to point out the other, necessary, side to that coin which is (for lack of a better succinct phrase )the principle of noblesse oblige.

But I digress ...

RHIP, yes, that's true. But rank also has duties and obligations, and the privileges don't begin to compensate for the duties and obligations!

Fr. Serge

Yes, thank you, precisely my point (expanded).

Is a lack of response, conciliarity, and dialogue on the issue of RDL (or any issue) a surprise? Obedience in faith is one thing, but "pray, pay, and obey" should be long dead.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

And my point is so what?

In your original post you attempted to credit the RDL with restoring five elements. That is false. And that is the whole point I am trying to make. The RDL restores nothing that was not already there with the 1942 and 1964 Liturgicons. You are making the same mistake that Father Petras routinely makes, comparing the apple of the “RDL” to the orange of the “as celebrated” when the correct comparison is to compare the apple of the “RDL” to the apples of the 1942 and 1964 Liturgicons. One might compare the “as celebrated” before and after the RDL to see how many parishes now use the proper prosphora (i.e., no “pre-cut”), teplota, and put the ablutions in the correct place but the cause of those who have now started doing them correctly would not be the RDL (since it did not restore these) but rather education, and the example and encouragement of the bishops.

Look at another example. If someone were to approach you and give credit to the version of the New American Bible published in 2000 for “restoring the seven missing books to the Old Testament” you’d probably roll your eyes at how silly that sounded. Then you’d point out that these seven books were in the original 1970 edition, the Douay-Rheims edition, and the Vulgate (etc.). And then if the some person said that “well the hierarchs involved with the NAB actually wanted to see these books in the Bible and used in liturgical worship” you’d roll your eyes again and explain that 1) the books were already there and 2) you can’t give credit to the bishops of the 2000 edition of the NAB for “restoring” these seven OT book when they were already present in the previous editions.

A fictitious but logical parallel here would you to be giving credit to the hierarchs who approved the 2000 edition of the NAB for restoring these seven Old Testament books while ignoring the little matter of them removing other books and insisting on changing the texts rather then translating them accurately. One could credit them for good intentions, and credit their love for the Lord but it would be clear that the bishops who mandated the changes were in error.

John

John,

I think we are descending into semantics, as restore was not the correct word for all five things I listed but I think you knew what I meant. I will amend my post as follows:

The Third Antiphon/Beatitudes are restored to the Pew Book, they were not provided in the Levkulic Edition except for Great Feasts of the Lord.

The Verses of the Prokimenon and Alleluiarion. Not sure what to say here. Indeed they were printed but often not taken. Not sure why or how this started as it was not an abbreviation mentioned or requested by Bishop Daniel when he requested certain dispensations from the 42 Liturgicon.

The Filioque is eliminated, no longer optional to take.

The Teplota is mandatory, no longer optional to not take.

The Ablutions are restored to their proper place, the dispensation to take them at "May our lips be filled ..." being allowed to lapse.

These things are in conformity with Orthodox usage and in the RDL.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

It may seem like semantics but really it is not.

I should have noted it further, but even comparing the official Liturgicon with a Pew Book is a bit of comparing apples and pears. [Sorry, oranges are already taken.] I don’t give credit to the RDL for restoring the Third Antiphon and the Beatitudes since in my former parish they were in use for the past 25 years (we simply pasted them in the book). For us and a number of other parishes the RDL shortened them. How could you possibly consider that to be a restoration?

Further, the Parma ‘green’ liturgy book from 1984 included a singe verse of all three antiphons. And I had a music edition of the Divine Liturgy used in about 30 parishes that contained the full text of the Liturgy (nothing omitted), including the traditional three verses of the three antiphons, and the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes.

The point is that when we speak of restoration we must always speak at the level of official books normative to the Recension.

The fact that the removal of the filioque and use of the teplota are mandatory does not mean they have been restored, for the option was always there. The rubric for the ablutions is the same in the 1942/1964 and the RDL so how can you claim the RDL restores them? Things already in the Liturgicon cannot be considered restored (see the example of the ‘restoration’ of the seven books in the OT). A directive to take them might be successful but it would be the directive to follow the Liturgicon that should be credited rather than the Liturgicion itself.

I don’t recommend mandates but the point is that a mandate to take them would not have required a single book to be reprinted or, in the case of the RDL, revised. And even directives don’t always work (but I’m glad to know all of the priests in Pittsburgh are in full conformance with the directives on the not using pre-cut prosphora, have restored teplota and have moved the ablutions to the correct place!).

Now, please go back to the original post, and re-read the link. Tell me what the RDL Liturgicon actually restores that the 1942 and/or the 1964 did not include. Anything that was already in the 1942 or 1964 cannot be called a restoration. This is so very important because some of the RDL supporters are claiming such things and they are false (see the apples and oranges example in my previous thread).

John

Praise God!

Well the actual words of the original post are about being in conformity with Orthodox usage, it says nothing about restoration. The Filioque and the Teplota were in the 64 Liturgicon but were optional at the bishop's, not the priest's, discretion. Which meant the Filioque was taken and the Teplota was not taken. The options were removed in the RDL bringing us into conformity with Orthodox usage in these two areas.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

You are confusing a Liturgicon with a liturgical directive. The 1942 standard is what restored them to the Liturgy, and the 1964 was a faithful translation. A liturgical directive with the 1964 would have accomplished a full and correct celebration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy. You can't give credit to the Revision for something it really didn't do. Please go and see my post on the seven books.

John

To be totally fair to the antebellum-RDL days, the Pew book did have, page 11 top: "If it is custom in a parish to use the THIRD ANTIPHON it is sung now."

It is true, as stated, that they were not provided, but they could be taken and we did (as the Beatitudes). And that situation, though it would have been nice to have it all in the book, was eminently more workable and expressive than the present stifling situation that by ukase has created a monopoly on what can be sung.

Heavens, Father Deacon, you have called to my attention an interesting cross-cultural phenomenon: up until now I don't remember the Rusyns using an Ukase! Creeping russification, that's what it is!

Fr. Serge

Indeed Father, you've got it. Images of imperialist, tsarist Russia having become swept up in the torrent of my own rhetoric, I felt the irony of us "little" folks aspiring to imitate the "great" ones -- in the wrong things -- to poignant to let pass.