The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
JStadnik, Tkoty, RomanovvII, squirrelpoose, AgathonTohen
5617 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 111 guests, and 68 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,789
Posts412,223
Members5,617
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hear the other side #315644 03/17/09 01:01 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) was pointed out in another current forum, link: Hear the other side (link). I'm wondering how that worked out or should have worked out regarding the 12 year process resulting in the RDL, and now the aftermath.

Were various potential "sides" notified, consulted or even aware of details? In one instance (Eparchy) there was no general dissemination (perhaps none at all) of the RDL text until it was a fait accompli. What then is to be done by the uninformed other "side"? Does it properly even exist in the eyes of the authorities? Should it, does it, even have a legitimate and acknowledged voice? How is that voice properly raised, heard and addressed in a respectful, effective and just manner?

Has there been a just hearing and appropriate response? How effective has this RDL forum been in calling attention to issues that the other side has raised? How thorough and responsible has the response been from the authorities, and those delegated by them in that 12 year task, to the questions, concerns and objections that have been raised?




Re: Hear the other side [Re: ajk] #315983 03/20/09 09:25 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
J
John Damascene Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) was pointed out in another current forum, link: Hear the other side (link). I'm wondering how that worked out or should have worked out regarding the 12 year process resulting in the RDL, and now the aftermath.

Were various potential "sides" notified, consulted or even aware of details?


No. the process was kept secret. No one outside the bishops, the liturgical commission and the music commission was notified, consulted or aware of the details of the revision. During the process questions to the commission were responded to frostily.

In one instance (Eparchy) there was no general dissemination (perhaps none at all) of the RDL text until it was a fait accompli.

The clergy of Pittsburgh, Parma and Van Nuys were provided copies of the RDL text a few months before it was promulgated. The Passaic clergy were not given even that. In Parma at the clergy meeting the RDL was walked through. Not a single change was actually justified. Kachuba was the one to speak commanding loyalty and obedience.

Pittsburgh was similar except that Archbishop Basil focused on how hard the commissions worked on “new translation” and the “new music.” He never acknowledged or really spoke to the rubric and music changes.

Throughout the process at the seminary’s cantor school in Pittsburgh the music was collected and the cantors were told not to show it to anyone – including their priests. Nicolette Boros from Parma complained constantly about how her input (she was the only official representative to the music commission from Parma) was simply ignored. Even Bishop John has complained that his concerns were ignored. Our own cantors were not even used to make the recordings. They were told that they were not good enough and that “professional singers” were necessary. The recordings were made in Chicago by the Thompson Schola in 2005 – two years before the promulgation.

What then is to be done by the uninformed other "side"?

They have called to obedience and told that in loyalty they are to accept it without question. Father David Petras posted that right here on this very form. Essentially lump it or leave. If you dislike the RDL in any way you are either “disloyal” or “uneducated.”

Does it properly even exist in the eyes of the authorities?

No.

But both Bishop John and Archbishop Basil have acknowledged in various conversations at clergy and other events that the RDL is pretty horrible. Both have spoken of the work by the two commissions as if they – the bishops – had no control over what was going on. They also seem to think they can’t do anything about it at this point. I say write off the cost of the books. Fix them and reprint them.

Should it, does it, even have a legitimate and acknowledged voice?

Yes, yes and yes!

How is that voice properly raised, heard and addressed in a respectful, effective and just manner?

The bishops do not respond to letters and some literally run away from the people who complain. People can complain to Rome. Priests can complain to Rome but depending on their bishop the response could be nasty. Bishop Pataki reminded one priest who complained that his retirement income was a gift from the bishop and not a right. He’s retired but he still rules this church.

Archbishop Basil has not enforced the RDL. It is known that parishes that have tried the RDL can go back to the 1964 without being hassled by him. He has not spoken about officially but he knows the RDL is a bust.

Has there been a just hearing and appropriate response?

There has been no hearing and no response.

People who do not like it have been told to leave.

In general people have been told variants of the “you are the first person who has complained” response and made to feel uneducated and disloyal.

How effective has this RDL forum been in calling attention to issues that the other side has raised?

I have no way of judging. The RDL is still here and still mandatory. In that sense this forum has failed.

How thorough and responsible has the response been from the authorities, and those delegated by them in that 12 year task, to the questions, concerns and objections that have been raised?

What response? Father David Petras has answered a few questions. I credit him for that. But his answers have not exactly been scholarly. They are more emotional. Nor have they even acknowledged any objective standards of normative texts, styles of translations, etc. Translation guides and study notes are secret. Father Petras even told us the approval letters were secret and not for the public’s eye. You can go and read all of them for the new Roman Catholic translations online. Everything was subjective depending on what the commissions wanted.

Re: Hear the other side [Re: John Damascene] #316239 03/22/09 11:03 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 59
D
Dostojno Jest Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 59
The bishops do not believe that the clergy and laity have a legitimate voice in the church. That is why they promulgated a Revised Divine Liturgy no one wanted or asked for. The bishops keep complaining the church is in free fall and people are walking away. In truth the bishops chase them away when they deny access to our own Liturgy and force upon us one manufactured by a committee. Keep writing to the Holy Father!

Re: Hear the other side [Re: Dostojno Jest] #316279 03/23/09 01:16 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by Dostojno Jest
The bishops do not believe that the clergy and laity have a legitimate voice in the church...


I do not want to believe that is true of our bishops, but I must admit -- and I say this from my own experience -- that I understand and am sympathetic as to why that is said. The points raised, the questions asked by the "other side" have effectively been ignored if even perceived.

A factor too is that no one wants dissension, disobedience, division. How many who are potential voices of the other side of the issue remain silent for the presumed common good? While I sympathize with their dilemma as somewhat of my own, it must be asked to what extent their silence gives the wrong impression that the other side is only a few malcontents. In that case the silence only goes to reinforce and appear to give consent to what has been done; and thus it is, contrary to its intent, enabling.

To what extent has the laity been adequately informed of the pros and cons of the various issues? I think the other side has raised some compelling issues. If so, it would be yet another regret that our BCC did not take the opportunity to vigorously respond by countering the criticisms with compelling data, scholarship and reasons to the contrary, and by answering legitimate questions as a responsible teacher should.

Let the RDL as a translation and method of liturgical renewal be put forth as a model for all, east and west, Catholic and Orthodox, to be emulated and admired, or let it be ... reconsidered and reevaluated. Let's be determined not to settle for good enough or second rate efforts or unsubstantiated claims and unwarranted scholarly conclusions.




Re: Hear the other side [Re: ajk] #316302 03/23/09 03:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
T
tjm199 Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
I agree. I will not engage in bashing anyone, let alone a Bishop. But their silence and attitude can very easily be interpreted as "not caring" and even "arrogance." That might not be the case at all. But it certainly can be interpreted that way. To read of so many people who have written to their Bishop only to hear nothing back at all, not even a form letter. That is disheartening to say the least. I can only hope the Holy Spirit is behind all the decisions made and it is for the betterment of the entire Church. I just don't see how though. But my viewpoint is severely limited I have to admit. I don't have any of the facts and figure the Bishop's surely have. One can't help but wonder why they didn't share those statistic's with the people who form so much of the church.

Tim

Re: Hear the other side [Re: tjm199] #316973 03/30/09 05:38 AM
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 20
P
Pittsburgh Byz Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
P
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 20
Archbishop Basil openly says that the only people who like the new RDL are the people who manufactured it. He admits that all the priests and cantors are still complaining about it. About how awful it all is. Simply put it is not ours. It’s not Byzantine. And knowing that it is all wrong he does nothing. Why? Because they spent millions and would rather suffer the RDL then admit they made a mistake. It’s like the guy who went out and paid for the top Cadilllac but wound up with an old Ford Pinto who spends the rest of his life tying to tell everyone including himself that he really got a Cadillac and everyone else just didn’t understand. The people and their salvation are not on the list of things to worry about. The RDL is an abomination of our Byzantine Way. And they ignore the good will of the people because they do not care about us. That is why the bishops refuse to answer letters. That is why they will not even stop for a moment to hear our concerns. They simply do not care.

Re: Hear the other side [Re: Pittsburgh Byz] #317032 03/30/09 05:42 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by Pittsburgh Byz
Archbishop Basil openly says that the only people who like the new RDL are the people who manufactured it... And knowing that it is all wrong he does nothing. Why? Because they spent millions ... And they ignore the good will of the people because they do not care about us... They simply do not care.

I certainly hope and do believe they care. I don't understand then that Archbishop Basil and/or any of the other bishops can also properly be represented as disavowing the RDL privately/non-officially and yet do nothing about the situation -- a kind of "I'm personally opposed but..." attitude. Financial disclosure and accountability seem warranted, whatever the situation: what did it cost and who paid for it.

Re: Hear the other side [Re: ajk] #317074 03/31/09 02:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
The words of Father Cantalamessa (preacher of the Pontifical Household, which he gave today at the Vatican in the presence of Benedict XVI and the Curia) in his 3rd Lenten Sermon seem apropos to this discussion.

Quote

...We should recogonize however that there is also the opposite risk: that of making the external and public testimony of the Spirit absolute, ignoring the internal testimony that works through the conscience enlightened by grace. In other words, it is the risk of reducing the guidance of the Paraclete to only the official magisterium of the Church, thus impoverishing the variegated action of the Holy Spirit.

In this case, the human element, organizational and institutional, can easily prevail. The passivity of the body is fostered and the doors are opened to the marginalization of the laity and the excessive clericalization of the Church.

Even in this case, as always, we should rediscover the whole, the synthesis, that is truly "catholic". It is the ideal of a healthy harmony between listening to what the Spirit says to me, as an individual, and what he says to the Church as a whole and through the Church to individuals.


http://www.zenit.org/article-25499?l=english

My emphasis.

In the case of the RDL (or the MML) the laity have been marginalized and the "institutional Church" has prevailed. It is clear, however, that the principles of the ordinary magisterium as set forth in Liturgiam Authenticum have been ignored along with the sensus fidelum. We need the authentic liturgy without the idealogical principles (contrary to the Gospel and common sense) which the translators of the RDL brought with them.

To quote Father Z., "Save the liturgy, save the world!"

Re: Hear the other side [Re: lm] #317125 03/31/09 04:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Recluse Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
How sad it is to see that the concerns of the wounded laity, continue to fall on deaf ears.

Re: Hear the other side [Re: Recluse] #317297 04/01/09 07:26 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
S
Stephanie Kotyuh Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
I believe they won't address it for a number of reasons...

1. The Parma Eparchy is celebrating its 40th Anniversary, and they don't want it to ruin their party.

2. If they just ignore it, the discord will go away.

3. They don't know what to do.

Re: Hear the other side [Re: Stephanie Kotyuh] #317465 04/03/09 01:10 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
lanceg Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Stephanie Kotyuh
I believe they won't address it for a number of reasons...

1. The Parma Eparchy is celebrating its 40th Anniversary, and they don't want it to ruin their party.

2. If they just ignore it, the discord will go away.

3. They don't know what to do.


Also, if they back off of it, they will have spent a huge amount of money for nothing. I personally would prefer they accept the huge financial loss, and let us go back to the old liturgy-

or-

we could order service books produced by one of the Orthodox jurisdictions! grin

Last edited by lanceg; 04/03/09 01:10 AM. Reason: grammar
Re: Hear the other side [Re: lanceg] #317479 04/03/09 05:41 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Etnick Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
or-

we could order service books produced by one of the Orthodox jurisdictions!

whistle whistle whistle

Re: Hear the other side [Re: Etnick] #317490 04/03/09 10:56 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
In fact, most of the work the Liturgical Commission did had already been done by ACROD, including musical settings in English to authentic Prostopinje tones (ACROD having taken the approach of having the text be compatible with the music from the beginning). In accordance with the guidelines laid out in the Liturgical Instruction, the Commission should have been working in close cooperation with their counterparts at ACROD, taken advantage of their experience and expertise, and produced something both Churches could have used in common. For some reason, that was not done.


Moderated by  Father Anthony 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3