I have a question. We were coming out of St. Paul’s Cathedral on Saturday night and ran into some friends from St. John’s Cathedral. They told us that Archbishop Schott is letting parishes return to the Byzantine (Old) Divine Liturgy and will no longer be required to take the RDL. They even said he went to a parish in West Virginia for an ordination and insisted that the Byzantine (Old) Divine Liturgy be used. Is this true? Is it official? Can anyone confirm this? If this is true it is really good news. I really miss our way. I almost want to call the chancery but they never give real answers.

I've had the same report. Interesting, but we do need confirmation.

Fr. Serge

Remember where you heard it first.

Fr. Deacon Lance

GLORY TO GOD!

I pray this is true...please keep us updated!!

I have heard that there are some parishes that have never adopted the Revised Divine Liturgy, and that when the Metropolitan visits them he does not make an issue of it. I do not think that this can be considered as blanket permission for parishes to return to the Byzantine Liturgy (1964 translation and and related music). If there is an official statement somewhere allowing the full Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy in English I'd be very happy to see it! Until such time that we see it in writing it is premature to assume official permission for anything except the RDL.

Again, it is my hope that the Council of Hierarchs will rescind the RDL and finally make normative all the official Liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension. Then, take the 1964 translation and correct the errors so that it is literally faithful to the Church Slavonic edition (adding nothing and omitting nothing, adhering to the directives of the "Liturgical Instruction" and "Liturgiam Authenticam"). And to do so in a way that respects what has been memorized (why hurt people when you don't have to?). The goal should be the full and correct celebration of all the Divine Services. Mandates are unnecessary and don't work. The way forward is through example, education and encouragement.

This is good news.

I have just been rereading The Ratzinger Report and then Cardinal Ratzinger made this observation which may help the faithful to understand the phenomena of what the Bishops were dealing with in the promulgation of the RDL. He stated:



The Ratzinger Report p. 62.

God bless the Metropolitan! May the other Bishops follow his lead and may the priests be courageous in "testing the waters."

Praise God!

Please tell me that we'll be deleting that horrible THEOTOKOS word....

What's so horrible about the word Theotokos?

Delete the Theotokos? What?

You are kidding of course? Theotokos is the correct word to use.

"Theotokos" is the highest title given to Mary.
In 431, the Third Ecumenical Council upheld the true doctrine that Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ is both fully Holy God and fully Man.

"Theotokos" is a Greek word made up of two parts. The prefix "Theo" means God and the word "tokos" means "carrier or bearer in the womb" (birth mother). (Tokos can only refer to a birth mother.) Then, the word "Theotokos" means "carrier or bearer of God in her womb (birth mother)".

The Ever-Virgin Mary was the carrier or bearer (birth mother) of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the son of God and the second person in the Holy Trinity. The Theotokos carried Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ from His Incarnation (conception according to the Flesh) to His Nativity (birth according to the Flesh). Therefore, Mary can rightly be called "Theotokos" or "God-bearer."

The term "Theotokos" does not imply that Mary contributed anything to the divine nature of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The term "Theotokos" merely affirms the belief that the person to whom she gave birth is without division both God and a human being.

Mary, the mother of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ is the "Theotokos".
She is NOT the "Christotokos". The prefix "Christo" means "Christ" and the word "tokos" means "carrier or bearer in the womb" (birth mother). Then, the word "Christotokos" means "carrier or bearer of Christ in her womb (birth mother)".
Mary was called "Christotokos" (Mother of Christ) by Nestorius and his followers. They believed that Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ was a very holy man sent by God, but was not Himself the Holy Son of Holy God, that is Holy God the Holy Son.
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokos.shtml

Too bad the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus did not realize how horrible the word "Theotokos" is.

You are NOT in a Greek church so why use a Greek word?

If you're going to use something non-English, then use MATERBOHA which is the correct term or BOHORODICE which is even better...

If you're going to insist on using English, then make it ALL ENGLISH translation and make sure the semantics are correct. If a woman gives birth then she is a mother, so MOTHER OF GOD is correct in English.... if it ain't broken don't fix or we'll have another fiasco on hour hands....

"Mother of God" is perfectly good English, which is among the reasons for its continued use in those places in our services where it is found in the original - such as the chant "It is truly meet . . ." during the Anaphora.

Theotokos is also good English, and is found in the vocabulary of educated traditional Christians, which is among the reasons for its use in those places in our services where it is found in the original - such as the chant I just mentioned.

We are not in a Greek Church? I just looked up your "profile" and found that you state that you are a Greek Catholic. You should, then, be proud that many theological and religious terms in English come from Greek. This includes the term "Catholic", which is a purely Greek word. I'll let you enjoy looking it up for yourself.

Fr. Serge

There is nothing wrong with the title THEOTOKOS , also the word "our" works just as well without an added "h" .

My issues with the translation and redaction that is the RDL remain, for the most part, as what I consider to be legitimate questions (and questionings) that have not been adequately answered. To revert to or allow or concede or turn the eye or tolerate or...whatever, neglects the issues, the questions. It would be for me a shame to have a liturgy -- e.g. the Recension liturgy text, aka in English the 1965 liturgicon (the Red Book) -- come in only through the back door and not be permitted through the front. As a Church we should be able to do better, letting our "yes" mean yes and our "no" mean no, and doing in the light of day what we would be willing to do in the dark.

...how 'bout a nice English word, "Birth-Giver", as used in the ACROD?

Ung

"Birth-giver of God" is what is used in ACROD...I caution...it is clunky with the music so it takes alot to get used to it..."Birth-giver of God" could create as many "issues" as Theotokos...

Personally...I think Theotokos is the word to use...

I've gotta agree with Job on this one. I mean, do you eliminate Alleluia or Hosanna as well? But, can this thread get back to its original intent?

I attended a Divine Liturgy yesterday at which the Uzhorod
seminarians sang. The congregation was encouraged to use
the "Old Book" to follow along. I was struck by how truncated
the "Old" Liturgy was, even in Slavonic, and even with the
"optional" ektenias sung. I was also struck by the seminarians'
addition of the theotokion (bohorodichen) that had been
excised from the "Red Book" and from the RDL. As some folks say,
"I don't have a dog in this fight" between Red Book and New Book.
But it does appear that there were deficiencies in the text
adopted to replace what came before the Red Book. Perhaps,
with some flexibility, the RDL can be made to work.

The "Old Liturgy" in its original state probably was something special. It might have actually been used in Oompa Loompa Land or possibly Grand Fenwick. Unfortunately, the "Old Liturgy" as practiced in most U.S. Byzantine churches was not special and was, in fact, somewhat chopped up. It was really not superior to the RDL which replaced it. If we are going back to the pre-RDL liturgy, why not fix it and get it right this time? I don't buy the argument that because something has been done wrong for 40 years we should accept it as tradition. That's the same thing the Latins are doing.

One must be careful to discern between the normative version of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (everything in the 1942 Slavonic standard and the 1964 translation), the various shortened versions (such as the "Gray Book", "Green Book", Levkulic Pew Book and other editions), and the "as celebrated" (which was even more abbreviated). The people never begged for the perpetual "Low Mass" they had in their parishes or as we find now in the RDL. The abbreviations occurred for many reasons, with much of the motivation coming from those who wished to distance the Ruthenian Church from anything resembling Orthodoxy. The result is that as a Church we do not know the treasure we have in our Liturgy and are throwing it away to replace it with customs others have tried and found wanting.

Yes, I agree. My 80-year old father says the undoing of our beloved Byzantine Church was the introduction of the "Low Mass." He said that one innovation wrecked our church. People became used to it, and could get "it" at the Roman Catholic Church. "It" replaced the gold standard Red Book.

Much like what is happening now, many Byzantines who saw what was happening left for either OCA or ACROD. We populated their churches and the Roman Churches by not staying true to ourselves. Our past Hierarchs only have themselves to blame for the state of our beloved Byzantine Church. Hopefully, the current Bishops will learn from the sins of others.

It is rather sad.

We ran into the Ruthenian Refugees at St. Paul’s Cathedral tonight. Everyone is talking about the return to the Byzantine (Old) Liturgy. But it all seems to be rumor. There is really no hope of getting our Ruthenian Liturgy back again. Archbishop Schott would rather close all our churches then allow it. St. George and Father Valerian are nice. Maybe it will be our new home. We didn’t want to get used to it there so we only go once in awhile. It’s all such a shame. The RDL is killing what’s left of our church. If they let it go on another year there will be no one left. It’s all such a shame.

The shame is that Ruthenian "Refugees" would sooner go to the Latin Cathedral than seek out a Byzantine parish that still uses the Levkluic books and old music or go to a Ukrainian or Romanian Catholic parish. All three exist within a half-hour drive of the Latin Cathedral. It certainly is a shame.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree with Father Deacon Lance. Pick up the phone and make a few calls to local Ruthenian parishes and ask. You might (horrors!) have to drive 3 or 4 miles. It will be worth it.

Only 3 or 4 miles ??

Some of us have no option but to go for about 40 involving a minumum of 7 hours from leaving the house to getting back

Over the years, I have found that to be quite common. In one NJ parish I am well acquainted with, many people had developed a dislike for the pastor. There were about five Byzantine-Rite Catholic Churches in the immediate driving area. Those who chose to leave went around the block to the large RC church. One can still find them there today. To a former RC like myself, who finds the Novus Ordo to be inferior to the DL of St. John Chrysostom, this is mind-boggling. I guess, to these people, "R.C." stands for "Real Catholic". What you see kicking in here is that Rusyn-American inferiority complex which Fr. Tom Loya has brought up on more than one occasion on this message board.

Dn. Robert

Deacon Robert,

I acknowledge that the "inferiority complex" is at work but there are additional reasons:

1. Social majority - our churches are small and there are better "social connections" in the larger Western Church
2. Convenience - in Confession availability vigil and Sunday liturgies, daily Liturgies
3. Pressure to join the Roman Church is the children attend a Roman Catholic school, since our parishes don't financially support the school
4. More professional conversion classes, Religious Education, music
5. Intermarriage
6. The acceptance of "we are all Catholics, so it doesn't matter"
7. Personal priest preference, i.e. "shopping around" for the priest which one likes best

Many of our factors are beyond our control. The RDL makes very little difference in my area.

Fr Deacon Paul

Do you think they should delete the following Greek terms used in theology and worship?

ACOLYTE
ADIAPHORA
AGAPE
AGAPE
AGNOSTIC
AKATHIST
AKATHLEPTOS
ALLELUIA
AMBON
AMILLENNIALISM
ANAMNESIS
ANAPHORA
ANATHEMA
ANGELOLOGY
ANTEDILUVIAN
ANTHROPOCENTRISM
ANTHROPOLOGY
ANTHROPOMORPHOS
ANTHROPOPATHEIA
ANTIDORON
ANTILEGOMENA
ANTINOMIANISM
ANTIPHON
ANTITHESIS
APOCRYPHA
APOLOGIA
APOLYTIKION
APOSTASIA
APOSTLE
APOTHEOSIS
ARTOS
ATONEMENT
AUTODIDAKTOS
AUTOGRAPHA
AUTOTHEOS
AXIOLOGY
AXIOS
BAPTISM
CANON
CASSOCK
CATECHISM
CATECHUMEN
CATECHUMENATE
CATHEDRAL
CHRISMATION
CHRIST
CHRISTOLOGY
CHRISTOPHANY
CHRISTOTOKOS
CONCUPISCENCE
CONSUBSTANTIATION
COVENANT
CULT
DEISM
DEUTERO-CANONICAL
DIACONATE
DICHOTOMIA
DISPENSATIONALISM
DOGMA
DONATISM
DOXASTICON
DOXOLOGY
DUALISM
ECCLESIOLOGY
ECUMENICALISM
EGALITARIAN
EISEGESIS
EKPHONESIS
ELENCHUS
ELIAS
EPICLESIS
EPIPHANY
EPISCOPAL
EPISTLE
ESCHATOLOGY
EUCHARIST
EVANGELISM
EX CATHEDRA
EXAPOSTILARION
EXEGESIS
GENESIS
GNOSTICISM
GOSPEL
HAGIA GRAPHIA
HAGIA SOPHIA
HE KAINE DIATHEKE
HERESY
HERMENEIA
HERMENEUTICS
HEXAPSALMOS
HOMOLEGOUMENA
HOMOOUSIOS
HYMN
HYPAKOE
HYPERBOLE
HYPHENATION
HYPOSTASIS
ICON
ICONOCLASTS
IKOS
IRMOLOGION
IRMOS
IRMOS
JESUS
KATABASIA
KENOSIS
KENOTIC THEOLOGY
KOINE DIALEKTOS
KONTAKION
LECTIONARY
LECTOR
LEITURGIA
LITANY
LITY
LOGOS
MARIOLOGY
MELODY
MENAION
METAMORPHOSIS
METONYMY
MILLENNIAL
MONARCHIANISM
MONASTERY
MONK
MONOTHEISM
MYSTAGOGY
NEONOMOS
OCTOECHOS
ORTHODOX
ORTHOPRAXIS
OUSIA
PAEDOBAPTISM
PAEDOCOMMUNION
PANACHIDA
PANTHEOS
PARADEIGMA
PASCHA
PATRIOLOGY
PEDANTIC
PENTATEUCH
PENTECOST
PENTECOSTARION
PEREGRINATION
PIETY
PNEUMATOLOGY
POLEMICS
POLYELEION
POLYTHEISM
PRESBYTER
PROKEIMENON
PROLEGOMENON
PSALM
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
SEPTUAGINTA
SOPHIOLOGY
SOTERIOLOGY
STICHERON
SYNERGISM
THEANTHROPOS
THEOLOGY
THEONOMOS
THEOPHANY
THEOS
THEOSIS
THEOTOKOS
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
TRICHOTOMIA
TRINITY
TRISAGION
TRITHEISM
TROPARION
TYPICON
TYPOLOGY

Ed,

Please don't encourage the ignorant to expose their ignorance further.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

The ignorant should be exposed for who they are, not protected. Maybe Pisankar can explain the statement that was made about the term "Theotokos"? It would be interesting to see what lies behind such ignorance. Even I know the meaning behind this highly regarded Greek term, which has much history from the Council of Ephesus.

Ed

Yes, let's not encourage them -- GOSPEL is number one on my list of the "Greek terms" that should be retained; TRANSUBSTANTIATION is a close second.

Before the playing of the hellenizing bandwagon becomes deafening, let me say I love the Greek language, and the word Theotokos. Although unassailable in its theological sense, I do not think it works in the RDL as intended. Our Slav forebearers certainly showed us there was a legitimate, equally unassailable, alternate approach. I think we should consider it too.

While there is nothing wrong with using the term "Theotokos" there is also nothing wrong with using the term "Mother of God" as a translation. It has a long usage in English. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos is on record stating that while he prefers "Theotokos" untranslated he believes that it is acceptable to translate it and that if you do the only term to use is "Mother of God".

As someone who prefers the translation we have used successfully for 40+ years I believe that I stand in good company with Bishop Kallistos who says "Mother of God" is a very legitimate translation. It is a very useful term - even Sikhs and Muslims know who you are talking about when you use it and it carries the familiarity that "Bohorodice" carried in Slavonic and which "Theotokos" does not carry in English. If Father Deacon Lance and others wish to consider me to be ignorant for preferring our 40 year tradition in using "Mother of God" they can go right ahead and do so. In these discussions I have disagreed with many of the arguments put forth but I have never once disrespected someone by calling him "ignorant".

The whole RDL has done nothing but harm the Church. It should be repealed immediately. I pray that the Holy Father rules favorably on the various appeals before him.

Administrator,

My take on the ignorance of the poster was in reply to Fr. Deacon Lance's use of the term. Are you calling Fr. Deacon Lance disrespectful too? The ignorance I refer to is the dissing of Greek terms, many of which are still constitutional of Christianity across the board of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, Eastern Catholics. Whether they are used in the RDL is of no matter. Just like you, I believe the RDL is a trashy text.

Your church has also adopted the terms "presbyter", "anaphora", "protosyncellus", "enarxis", "eparchy", and "protopresbyter". Should they diss these terms too? It seems that the Byzantine Catholic church has decided in its authority to refer to certain things, people, and offices with new (actually old) terms. What is the criterion(ia) in deciding which terms are acceptable? On one hand, they want to look and feel like "Orthodox", but on the other hand, they adopt gender-inclusive language without any explanation.

Ed

To prefer the transliteration Mother of God for Theotokos is fine. To label the title Theotokos "that horrible word" is the epitomy of ignorance and the one who does so has rightfully earned the label ignorant.

Fr. Deacon Lance

While your posts are far from a model of charity I was referring only to Father Deacon Lance's post.


No criteria for translation (if one exists) has been made public.

And please, do not call it "gender-inclusive". That is a political term. In reality gender neutral terminology excludes people.

No, it is an emotional response from someone who has been hurt by his Church. The people who created the RDL do not seem to care about the people they have hurt. That is so sad.

Feeling hurt by the hierarchs and liturgical commission is no excuse for disrespecting a title accorded to the Holy Virgin by an Ecumenical Council. I'm not willing to give a pass on this one because of hurt feelings.

A good pastor makes allowances for someone who has had the very way he relates to the Lord take from him, and is incredible spiritual pain. He approaches that person not with name-calling but with care and love, and then leads him gently towards healing.

Administrator,

Your reply to Fr. Deacon Lance was a reply to my post (Ed Hash was in your reply reference).

Who needs to be healed because the term Theotokos is used? What spiritual pain has been caused by using the term Theotokos?

I hope you don't think that a public forum is a substitute for a pastor. You are putting too much of a burden on your website. Fr. Deacon Lance brings up an interesting point: the word Theotokos was from an Ecumenical Council. No RDL bishop invented it. The term has been used in common language in Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, for years in the Enlgish-speaking countries. A particular fondness for the Greek term has been adopted in the same vein as the term "orthodox" in place of "Christians of the True Faith". My aunt tells me that many "Greek" Catholics got angry with their pastors for using the term "orthodox" or "pravoslavni". They yelled at their priests that they were NOT "orthodox"; they were "Catholic". Now, the term "orthodox" has been used for ages as an adjective and as a title of a religious community. What is it for the Christians of the True Faith? What "eparchy" does the Christians of the True Faith belong to? How are the Christians of the True Faith different than Greek Caholics or Orthodox Catholics or Byzantine Catholics? From what I gather, the RDL bishops refused to use the term "Orthodox" in their worship because of the explosive nature of the term, not because of the appropriateness of the term. "Theotokos" was safe to adopt, but "Orthodox" was not. What one calls the Mother of God is not much of a problem as what people are called in church. This is the biggest sign of ignorance and audacity. People care more about what they are called than what God or his mother is called.

Ed

I agree. When things are not handled pastorally people leave the church.

Have you left your church?
Ed

The forced change of rubrics, texts and music together is what has caused spiritual pain. This has been discussed at great length on this Forum.


I have never suggested that a public forum is a substitute for a pastor and have no idea where you got such an idea from. I have stated that each of us – especially those in orders – have a responsibility to provide pastoral care at all times no matter the occasion (in person, on the forum, etc.). An extra level of charity is always appropriate, no matter what the venue. A response that softly combined brotherly correction with a bit of education would have been more appropriate.

As to the rest, I am on record for stating that we have accurate and complete translations of the Divine Liturgy, and that because the people have memorized a specific translation any updates respect what is memorized and make changes only with great care, and with much education, encouragement and pastoral care.

Beautifully said.

Administrator,

My question was about the use of the term "Theotokos". Why is using "Mother of God" a more accurate and complete translation? How much education is needed to convince someone that Theotokos means Mother of God? I mention other Greek terms that STILL continue to be operative in all Christian religious groups. The term "Christ" is Greek. Though our Lord has many other titles that are popular, "Christ" is still here.

I believe that the English phrase "Mother of God" replaced "Theotokos" in the same vein as the term "Orthodox" disappeared. It would be disingenuous to think that all members of your church community have a short term memory and only have a fondness for English translations that obscure the more popular Eastern terms.

Case in point: What do we make of the phrase "Christians of the True Faith"? It has been suggested that this phrase is a uniate phrase that was to disguise the term "Orthodox" or its Slavonic equivalent. The Ukrainian Catholics have returned to using the term, but the RDL bishops have decided to preserve the uniate derivative, and from what was stated here on these forums, the term was not up for discussion. I use the term "uniate" in the descriptive sense, not as a pejorative.

When, Administrator, does that education begin? Byzantine Catholic have been here over 100 years. Many have edubecated the masses with catechetical materials, programs, classes, books, etc. How many homilies have conveyed the term? Icons of the Theotokos in your churches have the title on them. The term is in history, theology and spiritual books that anyone can either purchase and/or borrow from a library. The picture you paint is one of a horde of lazy and ignorant believers. This is not fair to those in your church who HAVE been educated.

Forgive me for saying this, but you seem to paint a pretty gloomy picture of the state of your church, one that implies that education has never happened there; one where people will only learn if handle like fragile porcelein. So, my question stands: When does the education begin? The RDL books have adopted the term "Theotokos". From what I gather, many of your priests HAVE spent considerable time educating their communities. My aunt mentions how education preceeded the reinstitution of infant communion. Someone in her community asked her what the term meant, and she knew enought to educate her. The only response was, "Oh". Life went on and the newly enlightened sang the word during worship that day. It can be done and it was.

But you speak of a particular fondness that some people have for wordings. I don't know what this fondness is you wish to defend. Fondness is no substitute for education. Fondness should not prevent education or retard it. Education should just happen. It is called catechesis.

I am only asking questions.

Ed

IF I were a more patient, and less tired (two jobs these days!) man, I would be inclined to calculate the ratio of periods to question marks in your six paragraph post that ends in "I am only asking questions."

I have gotten myself into trouble before by being too bold faced and direct in simply confronting folks with whom I disagree (and likely they recipricate), so I have to gently ask, (trying to do so more gently than I have before):

Are you really just asking questions?

Ed, I want to be gentle and the least confrontational I can be about this, but it seems as often as not, in the threads you start or are attracted to, provocation is the common denominator. As often as not, I feel like I am watching you pick at scabs and poke at old cats when you find the sore spots like it is a hobby or a sport. Like our church, what we are going through, and the tender and sensitive matters surrounding it in these times are a sort of sport or curiosity to you.

I hope I am wrong.

A Simple Sinner,

Yes. I am asking questions. If questions are considered "provocation" then there is a problem bigger than the need for catechesis.

My aunt's friend's church was attacked unfairly recently because of some misunderstanding by most posters on these forums. Even pumpkin roll eucharist was brought up! Was this to be taken as humor or just provocative? Here, I tried defending the good name of a community my own Byzantine Catholic aunt was familiar with. But one only has to read what was made of it to see that this "poking" was a common trait with many others.

My questions are real because I am trying to make sense of what is said on one hand and done on another. Contradictions often raise questions. I am not the one being contradictory. Your church community is. I am only trying to figure it out, and I was hoping that serious answers would be given.

Why are some issues considered "scabs"? What is so scabby about them? I raise the topic about fond terms like many others who have raised them: "Christians of the true faith" versus "Orthodox Christisns"; "Mother of God" versus "Theotokos"; vows versus crowning. I have asked for written material, catechesis, from your chief shepherds and, so far, have received absolutely nothing. Am I to conclude that no one really knows for certain where their church stands on anything? It is even stated here (not by me) that your highest ranking church shepherd now considers the RDL optional. Woah! Does that mean infant communion the Filioque will become optional? If your own shepherds cannot educate or enforce what they publish, then more confusion will ensue. There will be more questions ...

This is not a sport or curiosity of mine. I am personally affected by these issues because of my own familial ties to Byzantine Catholicism.

How long will a church let "tender and sensitive matters" continue? Why do those things which are naturally and instrinsically of nature to Eastern Christianity, nay, Byzantine Christianity, have to be "tender" and "sensitive"? What happened to letting the light shine on the hill top? What I and others witness is a community continuing to suffer because the best it has to offer a society so steeped in sin is hidden beneath a bushel basket. Why the fear? Why the timidity after all these years? The Orthodox are not afraid of being and promoting their brand of Eastern Christianity. Why the hesitancy? Why the loathing? The Roman Catholics are not afraid of being and promoting their brand of Latin Christianity. Why the scabs? Why the old cats continue to linger? The Evangelicals are working hard to convert your next generation.

It was one of your own chief shepherds that I read about not being fearful of who you are. Even Rome had to write "Instructions" to spell it out. Even after all this, confusion remains the name of the game. Your people are affected. Your people protect the scabs and harbor the old cats.

I appreciate the Byzantine Catholic church. But I also have many questions because contradictions remain apparently present after all these years.

Back to my question: What exactly is this fondness for translated (and preferred) terms like "Mother of God" and "Christians of the True Faith" that are still so dear to many in your community? Why can fellow Eastern Catholic (like the Ukrainians) find no problem to adopt "Orthodox" in their worship, but not the RDL shepherds? Why can fellow Eastern Cathoolics (like the Melkites) find no problem to rid of the vows in their "crowning" ceremonies? Why can fellow Eastern Catholics (like the Romanians) find no problem in working with "Eastern" monastic institutions?

Again, it is not me but many in key positions who are doing what they can to dismantle your beautiful church from within. I am only asking questions.

Ed

Have I even once suggested or implied that “Mother of God” is a “more accurate and complete translation” than whatever translation you are referring to? You constantly make incorrect assumptions and then ask misleading questions. I think “A Simple Sinner” is correct in his observation that your questions are not asked in plain interest.

My point about the use of the translation “Mother of God” is simple. People have used it their whole life (and many of the Ruthenians who use it are in their sixth, seventh and eight decades of life). Prayers and liturgical texts are written on the soul after a lifetime of use. One must take great care in forcing people to change, especially when the change is not at all necessary.

How much education is needed to convince someone that “Theotokos” means “Mother of God”? Quite a bit. Possibly a lifetime. There is a vast difference between someone understanding that the one is a Greek term from a Council and the other is an English translation and internalizing it in the heart. It’s not a parallel, but what did you call your grandmother? If you called her “Baba” or “Nana” your whole life what would your response be if someone came along and told you that you were wrong for using that term of endearment and legislated that in the future you must refer to her as “γιαγιά”. You might understand intellectually that “γιαγιά” is her name (title) in Greek but for the whole rest of your life she will be “Baba” or “Nana”. Many of our older people (and even many of our not so old people) have formed a close relationship with the Mother of God (with the older term being “Bohorodice”). It is not a matter of teaching people that the terms are equivalent and one is now preferred and the other discouraged. It is so much more than that.


“Christians of the true faith” is an incorrect term and should be changed to “Orthodox’. But at a pastoral level many Ruthenian clergy and laity would be scandalized at the use of the term. All their lives they have been taught that we are Catholics, not Orthodox. They have lived with the very real pain of split families from the Church splits in 1929 and watched in horror as the Soviets simply dissolved our Churches in Europe and annexed them to the Moscow Patriarchate. For them the term “Orthodox” carries with it a ton of negative history. One simply cannot force the term upon them. One teaches the correct use of the word and allows it – over time – a positive understanding of the term to replace the negative understanding. There are probably many ways to teach the proper understanding of the term “Orthodox” (but, really, even this would involve consideration of self-identity). My recommendation has been to add it to the books, perhaps leaving “Christians of the true faith” as the text with a footnote that says: “Literally, ‘Orthodox Christians.’” The alterative might be the opposite; to use “Orthodox Christians” in the book but to allow the older clergy to keep using “Christians of the true faith” for the rest of their lives of service.

The Ukrainian Catholics are at an advantage here. They seem to have used the term “Orthodox” in their earliest translations. And they do not have the immediate memory here in the United States of the events of 1929.

Here is another way to look at this. Let’s say your favorite Christmas Carol is “O Come, All Ye Faithful”. You have sung it all your life and know it by heart. Now along comes a committee that decides that they don’t like the current translation. They prefer what is called the “Portuguese Version”:

Hither, ye faithful,
haste with songs of triumph,
to Bethlehem haste,
the Lord of life to meet;
To you this day is
born a Prince and Savior;
O come and let us worship
O come and let us worship
O come and let us worship
at His feet.

Now, you might intellectually accept this alternate version as a legitimate one. But what words are written on your soul? Would singing these for the next 10 years (or longer) ever replace the words you grew up singing? It is precisely because translations are far more then just words that one must be very careful in changing them. Once something is memorized the Church needs to be very careful in reaching into someone’s heart to change the way that person relates to the Lord. Never change what is perfectly acceptable and has been memorized over a lifetime just to meet an individual’s (or a committee’s) idea of what is perfect.

Please do not continue to preface every reply by questioning my intentions.

This thread begins with the notion that your chief leading shephered has now instructed his people that the RDL is now optional. This is a long way from the beginning of its implamentation when another shepherd said there will be no debate. SInce then, your website has provided a public forum to question and challenge it. If what the originial poster states is true, then your challenge has become successful.

I only ask for debate, or morre likely, questions to be permitted. I admit, I have a lot to learn of this community. Where else besides my aunt do I have to go to ask questions?

It looks like there are still more lingering hangups permitted to foster or fester. From what I read, many on these forums, who are members of the same church community, HAVE renewed themselves as "Orthodox Catholics" or "Orthodox in COmmunion with Rome" and move on. Good for them. Unfortunately, thesee folks' lights have become extinguished one by one in favor of those who still cannot get over the past.


Ed

As long as you misrepresent and twist what people say I will rightly question your intentions.


The Forum has also been a vehicle for those who support the Revision. Father David’s posts, for example, find far more readers here then do his columns in the three eparchial newspapers.

I don’t know that what the original poster states is true. Can you provide evidence of parishes returning to the older texts and music, and written authorization for them to do so? It seems to me that what we have is a number of parishes that never started the RDL and the Metropolitan is not making an issue of it. That is not quite the same thing. In any event, I sincerely doubt that the discussions here on the Forum have anything to do with the decisions of these pastors. We have a good readership but the fact is that most Ruthenians have not heard of this website.


Your ‘questions’ are loaded with sarcasm and judgment, no matter which direction they come from. They do not come across as questions from a fellow Christian seeking understanding. They come across as someone looking to tear down.


One does not condemn a people for where they are at, for mostly where they are at is a direct result of the decisions of their past bishops. One instead leads them from where they are and lifts them up to where they should be, using gentleness and charity. There are plenty of examples in all churches of pastors who directed change without education that wound up destroying the parish. There are also examples of pastors who took a parish and nurtured it from bad praxis to good praxis. I’ve seen parishes go from the worst praxis to the best praxis (complete and correct) in just a few years with the people eager to learn more and to pray more. No mandates were required, just good example, education and encouragement. It is this that I desire for the Church.

The issue is or should be with the use of "orthodox" (small o) in the liturgy. Your question is wrong because it presumes the answer. I'm acquainted with Greek, I'm ok with the word orthodox, I have no anti use of "orthodox" because we're not the "Orthodox" baggage, I have many issues with the RDL translation, and yet on this issue I do not favor the use of the word "orthodox" in our translation. I'm willing to try to make my case for a translation close to the BCC's on the basis of linguistic merit, clarity of meaning and fidelity to the received texts. If you're really interested in substance and not hype, start a thread (it's in my to-do queue) exploring the issue. To me your questioning of this issue is presumptuous.

As to your poor Auntie's turmoils and what you characterize as others muck-racking through websites, I'm surprised that, with you as a nephew, your aunt isn't a whole lot tougher. Review your own conduct in the thread you started on the "vows" (which starts off well enough, but read on). Again your continued questioning ignores the answers provided in the thread. In short: The "vows" are in the Slavoinc of the Recension text; they have standing. One can propose that the time has come for them to be eliminated from a translation of the service. I believe they should stay. Your question presumes the answer and it ignores the circumstances and falsifies the motivation of our church and its bishops.

Darn if I do, darn if I don’t. Small o or big o; I see how this is so strenuous on the RDL church. It seems to me that NEITHER is acceptable. Period. The RDL church prefers the uniate derivative “Christians of the true faith” because it avoids this wretched (to use a popular adjective) term. I sense fear.



Then other Eastern Catholics, such as the Ukrainians, are not being faithful in their adoption of the term “orthodox” in their church service? There seems to be two sets of criteria of what constitutes “linguistic merit”, “clarity of meaning”, and “fidelity to the received text”. Please explain these three criteria of yours as they relate to the Ukrainian’s adoption of the term “orthodox” and the RDL bishops refusal to adopt or even to discuss it.



My “poor Auntie’s turmoils”? “Tougher”? I am certain you are not being sarcastic here, are you? My “Auntie” is quite a strong, spiritual woman. Probably did more for her Byzantine Catholic community than you can muster. There is no reason to chide a woman you have never met, especially one who is deeply involved in her church community. But since you are a man who just don’t understand when a woman gets upset, maybe some explanation is necessary. My aunt has a friend for many years who belongs to the community that many were making false accusations against. What was implied on this forum, including pumpkin eucharist and pagan mass, was just plain silly, if not sad. In the end, no one knew what happened. Someone read an on-line bulletin and started a post aimed at questioning it. People have a right to ask questions without being personally assaulted. The question raised was not wrong or presumptuous. What I did was simply convey to the posters on this public forum what a member of that community told my aunt. They were upset with people like you. Many do not have computers that are their means to combat lies. Do you know what it is like to tick off the church ladies?



The turning point was when a clergyman called the vows “wretched”. What is a person to think looking inside this church when he or she sees on one hand shepherds preserving this ceremony, and on the other hand clergyman referring to it as “wretched” and never having used it in his own ministry. Rome, we have a problem. I asked questions, but no one really seems to know. From what I understand, the RDL shepherds are no longer in Poland being obedient to Polish government and Roman Catholic shepherds. Signing the church registry, I think, is good enough. Why vows? What is the Byzantine Christian theology behind them? Why include them if the crowning does the job?



Father Serge Keleher, many other clergy, and posters on this forum disagree with you. Are you saying that you are the expert in these matters? So, we are back to where we started: confusion. Because of confusion, one “can propose” questions about the inclusion of vows in the RDL community. My “auntie” tells me that their community NEVER uses them. Regarding the RDL worship, the original post was about your chief shepherd giving a blanket permission for the old Byzantine Divine LIturgy. This is a bold, public statement or observation. People read this and are learning that the books they are currently using (maybe) in their worship are optional. It first began with one shepherd stating that there will be "no debate" on the subject; now, the rumor has it that another shepherd is disavowing it (no pund intended).



What are the circumstances? What IS the motivation of your bishops? I wrote several open letters to a Father David Petras asking WHO demanded that gender neutral language be instituted in your RDL service, and he has yet to give a straight answer. (I think knowing who the WHO really was will tell the tale that needs to be told). What is the motivation to keep preserving vows when many of the clergy and people consider them “wretched”? My “auntie” can’t find anything in the children’s catechesis material hallowing the beauty and wonder of vows in the Byzantine wedding ceremony.

So, here is the problem (and I have my strong Auntie to raise this issue) – you have a church community that instructs its children one way, but they later get smacked down for living out their religious way of life. Case in point: In another community, the clergyman introduced/instructed the children (and adults) to enter the church and make a path to the icon on display to venerate it. The children, having been instructed and explained the purpose of this ritual, did just that. This went on for a few months until those “fond” of NOT venerating the icons as they enter (they usually would make a bee-line to the back pew where they would plop their butts down) had their staunch ways supported. The uneducated adults, some who quipped that their church was becoming too Orthodox, began to put pressure on the children to stop their little charade. The children eventually stopped venerating the icons. This seems to be the problem with certain terms and rituals too. Will education be put into practice only when all the staunch have died off? Will it be too late?

Mr. Administrator has made the point, and I apologize if I can’t put it into exact words that reflect his thoughts, that you can’t reform one area of church without first adopting the mindset and heart. Something like that. But it looks like that mindset is slowly being adopted at the grass roots level in the many communities that DO get it. The work is long and laborious, but has become successful in many areas. Then, after all was said and done, a proposed marriage ceremony is put forth wanting to preserve vows! People witness no vows in their community and then read about them in their church books! I read the books that were sent to me and also have questions.

It is understandable why confusion reigns. I wasn’t the one who brought it, no matter how presumptuous you consider me. My heart leans to Eastern Christianity. I can overlook the personal sins and mannerisms of shepherds, but when the teaching is contradictory or when teaching conflicts with actual practice, then it is no wonder why “orthodox” is such a wretched term: straight-belief/worship is not so straight. It would be a contradiction of terms because straight-ness implies one is being straight on all matters, not wishy-washy or leaning to particular fondness. But going back to the case in point: The next generation is finally getting it only to be smacked down. The church leaders knows who pays the bills, so those doing the smacking down are catered to. Forget Eastern Christian catechesis. Utility bills and salaries must be paid, not the truth be told.

I remain confused about your religious community. My poor, strong Auntie is still upset about her friend's church community having been charged as pagans.

I thank you, Mr. Administrator, and all others who have continued to challenge me. It has truly been a learning experience. I am grateful for this opportunity.

Ed

Just a point on some earlier posts. I would be leery of calling anything with a 40-year history, tradition. Look at the Latins, for example. They have the "tradition" of the last 40 years of music and liturgy in this country. The problem is that it's mostly inferior and did not develop organically. Bad music and liturgy are still bad 40 years later.

It is impossible for me to respond to false presumptions and non sequiturs of which this is but one example. You might as well be asking, "and have you finally stopped beating your wife?"

As I said, consider starting a thread on the issue. I'll no doubt participate and try to make my case. I can appreciate the arguments that can be made for other solutions than mine. Often, in the end, there are many valid points on all sides of the issue and a judgment must be made.

Similarly for the issue of the "vows."



As you have described her in your posts she seems to be a concerned, genteel woman, not a hardened malcontent. Such a "strong" person as you put it, has my admiration and should be appreciated and recognized as such. Who is she; what is her church/parish?

False presumptions? Non sequiturs? Beating your wife?



Appreciate arguments? Not with the implications of false presumptions, non sequiturs, and beating one's wife. You have avoided answering the questions I make. Maybe your avoidance is indicative of your answer? I gave you a case about how your next generation of Byzantine Catholics are being educated and practicing their faith - even in matters of rituals (venerating icons as one enters the church) and how this was smacked down by the bill payers of the parish because their fondness for all things not-so-Orthodox. The children do not pay the bills and have no influence over their shepherds. They can only rely on whether they are ever permitted to experience and practice their Eastern Christian faith. If the older generation in your communities wish not to be educated, then you can forget all the effort being invested in the younger and newer generation. Such silliness to actually think that the children are the future of one's community. That future is retarded day in and day out by those who want their fondness to be catered to while holding their wallets and purses. My question is still valid: When does that education begin? And if it already has, why is it always being challenged by those in charge? Catechesis material does not have vows taught, but vows are still proposed for the future of a church not in sync (or never wishing to be in sync) with fellow Orthodox believers.

It looks to me like your RDL communities are in a real impasse. Other Eastern Catholic communities have already made the decision and took the road to what they consider will lead them to authentic Eastern Christiand beliefs and practictes. Your RDL shepherds are still instilling indecisiveness and confusion. One bishop mandates "no debate" on the RDL worship service; another offers a blanket permission to return to the older pre-RDL worship service.

This forum provides an opportunity to offer questions. From what I read about the history of the Byzantine Catholic church, previous media outlets that questioned the church doings were taken over completely by the shepherds. No debate.



I am not at liberty to provide personal information. She had her identity stolen once, and I think it be best to leave her alone. Can you accept that? She also does not participate in these forums. I do. I participate because of my interest in Eastern Christiantiy and our discussion.

Peace,
Ed

Alternately, to protect the innocent, this is never revealed. "The Aunt" as a source of inside knowledge or turmoil is, however, a recurring leitmotit.

I think you mean leitmotif.

I would ask my grandparents, but they are deadmotifs.

I would ask my uncle, but he is a dead byzcathmotif.

My auntie is a wonderful leitmotif, an excellent "source".

Ed

Yes. Yes. See the context.

I avoid no legitimate question; ask one. Start the indicated thread; focus on at least one issue.

The motif has always been the same - contradiction. Contradictions between what is taught and what is actually practiced. Contradictions lead to confusion. Confusion leads to questions. Questions lead to no answers.

The original post was about a "blanket permission for Byzantine (old) Liturgy". Let's start there since you can only handle one issue at a time. Was a blanket permission given to return to the old or pre-RDL worship service?

This thread should not proceed further until that question is answered with absolute certainty. otherwise, it is merely a rumor.

Ed

Mr. Hash might consider taking the time to actually read what is posted. The original post heard a report from someone that might have been a mere rumor and asked for confirmation. No one confirmed permission. I noted that I was unaware of any official permission and suggested the matter was one of some parishes continuing with the 1964 texts and music rather then with the 2007 Revised texts and music, and that the Metropolitan was simply not making a fuss (for whatever unknown reasons). Mr. Hash then asked questions, to which I and others provided answers. Mr. Hash asked the same questions over again without reference to the answers already given. Now he seems to have come back to wondering if official permission was given at all and demands proof, when it has already been stated by the original poster who was looking for proof that there was none.

Methinks Mr. Hash is not serious about anything except showing himself to be annoying.

Admin

To be clear, "blanket permission" is in the thread title and not the original post. I have no information about any official permission being given to celebrate other than the RDL in English. In addition, as I said in my first post in this thread: