The idea that the RDL reveals a lack of hope struck me forcefully the other morning. Here's why.

It appears that the authentic liturgy, "the lex orandi," may shock modern men because it so clearly sets forth how much the faith, "the lex credendi," is at odds with modern worl in which we all live and breath. Cardinal Ratzinger spoke forcefully about the kind of "faith" that sought to hide the truth from one's fellow man. There is a bit in the RDL which seeks to hide the faith (for fear of offending) as it excludes certain words from the Liturgy and Creed. The RDL, by its example, tells the faithful who attend it, and that world of nonbelievers whom it seeks to convert, that its OK to tweak certain aspects of the faith if they don't fit into your "schedule." While a certain amount of flexibility may be necessary, such flexibility should never be enshrined as the norm. Thus it would be best, should a parish be capable and willing to do it, that the whole liturgy be able to be taken.

Here is what then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote which gave rise to this idea of a lack of hope in the RDL.



http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

Recently, as Pope Benedict, he has spoken of true hope to the youth of Rome. In a Lenten sermon he said,



http://www.zenit.org/article-25556?l=english

Let us pray that the theological virtue of hope be firmly planted in our priests and Bishops.

Could you please elaborate on your second paragraph?

First, as Christians we should never give up hope!

For me, the RDL signifies that our synod of bishops really wants to renew the Church and help it to thrive in today's world. Even if the Liturgy that resulted is seen as imperfect by some, our Byzantine Catholic Church still has life in it. The very fact that our bishops sought liturgical renewal proves the point--in my mind.

We need to recover our proper Constantinopolitan-Kievan patrimony and all that goes with it. We are still in a process of becoming.

Sadly it seems that some see the RDL as the end of our renewal and recovery of our authentic identity as Eastern Christians. I remain full of hope for the future and await the next step in renewal of our Carpatho-Rusyn Churches. The RDL was one step. I believe heavy lifting remains.

Perhaps we will restore minor orders. Perhaps we will return to the Orthodox Paschalion. Perhaps we will have our own TV presence. Perhaps all our parishes will have proper icons screens, one Sunday liturgy and Vespers. Perhaps we will shrink to grow again. Perhaps we will have monasteries and married priests. The possibilities with Christ are endless. There is always hope in Christ!

We need to support the good work of our bishops, priests and deacons and offer to assist them in the Lord's vineyard.

The best is yet to come for the BCC.

A blessed Great Week to all!

Slava Isusu Christu!

Well said!

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory to Jesus Christ!)
Slava Na Viki! (Glory be forever!)

I hope you are correct, JohnS. I am one of the cradle Rusyns who are hurt by this new RDL. I do see it as an attempt by the Bishops to leave our traditions and roots behind to become something else. I don't know what the something else is. But I know the RDL just doesn't feel correct and I have learned to trust my gut instincts. It just doesn't seem right, feel right, sound right. Minor tweaking of words doesn't concern me. I understand there are mistakes in the translation that is being used now. That's why I love the Church Slavonic liturgies. I also understand that doing a liturgy in only Church Slavonic will only hasten the end of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. It won't attract new people since they just can't understand the language. But it just seems as if the Bishops, and I'm not saying anything disrespectful, don't seem to care about the feelings of the people who are currently the members of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. If the Bishops are doing this to help attract new members, it had better attract lots of new members and soon. Because it sure is turning off current members. If there were an ACROD (American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocease) Church in my area, I probably would switch to that particular brand of Orthodoxy. But there isn't. So I stay and attend and do what I can. But all I have is hope that the Holy Spirit is working through the Bishops and they are correct.

Holy Lazarus Saturday!

Tim

I don't think the RDL reveals a lack of hope. I think it reveals a lack of understanding about Liturgy. It takes us so far away from our own tradition which we share with Orthodoxy. It is a huge step in the wrong direction. It merely imitates the worst of what the Roman Catholics did after Vatican II.

I pray the bishops will come to their senses.I pray they will cancel the revision and allow the full and uncut Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Without all the politically correct words.

Dear JohnS,

I believe the problem is that there is no plan. I spoke to my Bishop directly regarding minor orders. I asked him with the statistics showing men leaving the church in greater numbers than women, is he considering restoring minor orders as a way to stop that trend. His answer, "I hadn't thought about it."

In all honesty, I don't think my Bishop is any different than any other -- I think it comes from the Metropolitan. When you have strong leadership, you know which way the ship is going and how you're going to get there. We're focused on the wrong things, the RDL being one of them.

Stephanie,

I believe that the Divine Liturgy is the right thing to focus on. In the East, it is our theology and it is our primary means of catechesis. Authentic Liturgy resulted in the Baptism of Kyiv. But, Liturgy is not the only area of focus.

John

"The idea that the RDL reveals a lack of hope struck me forcefully the other morning."

Nah, it merely reveals a lack of humility and the true arrogance of the second rate scholar.

"It appears that the authentic liturgy, "the lex orandi," may shock modern men because it so clearly sets forth how much the faith, "the lex credendi," is at odds with modern worl in which we all live and breath. "

Hey! I'm the modern man. They don't get more modern than me.

Furthermore, I and my family are precisely the people the RDL is supposedly designed to attract--the unchurched in search of the true faith. As I have mentioned before, there aren't too many people who are baptized into the Ruthenian Church as adults (unless, of course, they are marrying a Ruthenian), and my family comprise four. So why is it that the RDL literally (I am a stickler for words, and am using the term correctly) makes us physically ill?

Could it be the faulty methodology behind the translation?
The failure to stick to the mandate of rendering a full and accurate translation of the Slavonic original?
Could it be the errors in translation themselves?
The flatness of the prose, the lack of beauty, euphony and grandeur?
The relentless didacticism, the reliance on paraphrase that forces the translator's understanding of the text upon the faithful, rather than allowing us to work it out on our own?
The poor settings of the music?
The reduction of the varied musical traditions of the Ruthenian Church to the usage of one cathedral in the 18th century?
The lack of respect for the faith and integrity of the laity?
The reliance on secret coteries of experts, and the failure to subject the liturgy to any sort of meaningful peer review?
The destruction of a dynamic and vibrant liturgical tradition in favor of an abstract, academic model of what the Ruthenian liturgy ought to be?
The denigration of all criticism of the RDl as mindless carping, rigid traditionalism, nostalgia for the lost past, disobedience and lack of faith?

Or could it be all of the above?

My own opinion is the only people who have lost hope are the authors of the RDL themselves, isolated in their ivory towers, intent more on impressing their academic peers than in serving the Church, behaving like trustees liquidating a bankrupt business rather than as true shepherds of the faithful.

Well, you asked, and that's precisely how I see it.

This one?



I think that the modern world is best described by the phrase Cardinal Ratzinger used in his sermon in the liturgy before the conclave began: "the dictatorship of relativism." In the modern world, nothing is absolute; nothing is wrong; everything can be compromised. If that is an accurate description of the times in which we live, then making the liturgy "accessible to a comtemporary American congregation," the stated goal of the RDL from the forward, is frought with danger--because moderns don't think anything is absolute, but the Liturgy brings us to the threshold of the absolute and indeed brings us in direct contact with Him. The "dictatorship of relativism" made its way into the RDL when words were dropped from the Creed and Liturgy to make them compatible to the modern feminist. Others more knowledgable than I have seen other errors, but that particular error is the one which demonstrates the most serious error, for it is the modern feminist (and one need not be female to fit in this category) more than anyonoe else, seeks to destroy the faith which we have received from the Fathers. The modern feminist wants to get rid of the notion of fatherhood altogether for fatherhood itself is derived from the Fatherhood of God. True fatherhood is fruitful and life giving--and this fatherhood is hated by the modern feminist. Three years in a modern law school showed the depths of the hatred for fatherhood and the Catholic Church--and our leaders have unwittingly adopted what the worst feminists in my own school were advocating relentlessly--change the language to change what people think, to change how they act. "Man" was the ultimate taboo. Christ was the ultimate "Man," and the Church, His bride, the ultimate target of their scorn and hatred.

The lack of hope seems to me to consist in the idea that if we don't change the Liturgy to fit the idealogical presuppositions of the elite (who know what's good for "us" contemporaries, the churches will be empty. My church pre-RDL was full--and filled with lots of children. It didn't need the RDL.

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that "error has the same intelligible structure as sin." If he is right, then the revised creed within the RDL itself has the "intelligible structure of sin." I am not saying it is sinful, but I am saying it has the same intelligible structure. There is a clear error--a word has been dropped from the Creed. Think of it this way, "Which Father of the Church which sanction such action in order to make the Creed more accessible to his contemporaries?" The Liturgy should ought not be adjusted to make it more accessible to modern man. Instead, modern man should adjust himself through the Liturgy to make himself more suitable to God. As we all know, that is a task that takes a lifetime. There is no quick fix. We have to formed by the Eucharist into the perfect image of Christ--sons in the Son of God for the glory of the Father.

I guess I disagree with John that the RDL is a sign of hope. Mere change is not an indication of true hope. Real hope always binds us to the truth. But I think Stuart hits the nail on the head when he states:



I concur. That's the loss of true hope of which I am speaking.

"Perhaps we will restore minor orders. Perhaps we will return to the Orthodox Paschalion. Perhaps we will have our own TV presence. Perhaps all our parishes will have proper icons screens, one Sunday liturgy and Vespers. Perhaps we will shrink to grow again. Perhaps we will have monasteries and married priests. The possibilities with Christ are endless. There is always hope in Christ!"

Christ is not a Ruthenian, and there is no guarantee that any particular Church will survive. Augustine was a bishop of the great African Church, which rivaled Rome in its wealth, its theological depth, its contributions to the Tradition of the Western Church. Where is it today? Who is bishop of Carthage, or of Hippo Regius? If the Church of Africa can become an obscure footnote in history, who is to say that the Ruthenian Byzantine Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh will not join it?

Had our God-loving bishops known what they were about, had they really wanted to restore the fullness of the Tradition, then of course, the last thing with which they would have meddled was the Divine Liturgy. And, if they had been serious about removing divisions between us and the Orthodox, they would have done nothing except in consultation with the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Archdiocese.

If they were serious about restoring the Tradition, they would have begun by restoring the fullness of our liturgical observance before diddling with the centerpiece of our worship. We would have churches in which Vespers was celebrated not as part of a "vigil liturgy", but in its own right, at the very least on Saturday evenings. The Divine Liturgy would be prefaced by Orthros, and people would flock to these services because they recognized the necessity of a full liturgical life, instead of on the Eucharistic liturgy as the be-all and end-all.

If our bishops were truly concerned about restoring Tradition, they would have focused on restoring the liturgical consciousness of the people before foisting a new liturgy upon them. But that's hard work.

If our bishops understood how liturgy is the center of the life of the Church, if they had even an iota of historical understanding, they would not now be repeating the very same errors the Latin Church made some forty years ago, and from which it has not recovered to this day. They would have moved with infinitesimally small baby steps, in a process that would require decades, first reforming the rubrics, then making minor adjustments to the text and the music, so that at no time would the familiarity of the Liturgy and the stability of our worship be disrupted.

If they were really concerned about us, they would have realized that one size does not fit all, that what might be a useful reform in one parish would do incalculable harm in another, and it would proceed with caution, charity and oikonomia at every step.

If our bishops loved the Church, they would by now have made an unambiguous statement not only about the restoration of minor orders (who in his right mind ordains a man to the subdiaconate and then fifteen minutes later elevates him to the diaconate? Whatever happened to only one ordination per day?), but also about opening ordination to the presbyterate to married men.

But none of these have happened, because our bishops are weak and seriously confused men, who aren't sure in their own minds precisely what the Ruthenian Church is supposed to be--and therefore they hedge, trim and straddle, neither Latin nor Orthodox, but some unsustainable tertium quid.

I see the RDL as nothing less than Elkoism with a human face. Bishop Nicholas at least had the virtue of straightforwardness--he wanted to gut the Byzantine Tradition. Our new leaders are not so transparent. They pledge fidelity to the outward form of the Byzantine Tradition, and make changes they claim will bring us closer to fidelity with it, but in fact the thinking behind these reforms is just a ghostly reflection of Latin fads of some three decades ago. In place of latinization of form, they impose latinization of the intellect, so that we will become, over time, just what the Orthodox say we are: a ritual adjunct of the Roman Catholic Church.

But why settle for a pale imitation when you can get the real thing? Those among the faithful who are Latin in outlook and disposition (if not canonically Latin themselves), will avail themselves of the Latin Church. Those Latins among us who fled the liturgical chaos of the their own Church, will say, "Oh, not again!", and go back whence they came. And those among us who truly want to be Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome, will recognize that our objective cannot be fulfilled in the Ruthenian Church, and will look elsewhere, either within the Catholic communion, or with the Orthodox themselves.

And the net result will be the gradual withering away of the Ruthenian Church, died of a theory, and of the indifference of its leaders.

And yet it doesn't attract you. Gosh, you must not be the kind of modern man their looking for! You actually have some form and substance as is clear from your posts!

Oooh...can I make that phrase my own? I like it.

---
Stuart,

If your hypothesis is true, who is making our hierarchs shut down the BCC? Rome? Why would the bishops want to drive the Church into the ground? Why is the UGCC coming back to life and the BCC going the other way? Why invest $$$, time and scholarship in a new liturgy if the end game is no BCC?

There must be a plan, and the RDL is part of it.

"If your hypothesis is true, who is making our hierarchs shut down the BCC? Rome? Why would the bishops want to drive the Church into the ground? "

They are doing it themselves, of their own accord. No one is "making" them do anything. Being falible men, they are prone to short-sightedness, to vanity, to self-interest--everything that the CEO of a hedge fund can do, a bishop can do with regard to his Church. The CEO didn't want to drive his company into the ground, but a combination of bad decisions and self delusion caused it to happen. Same with the Ruthenian bishops. Ruthenians, in fact, have a long history of being badly served by their bishops from the moment Soter Ortynskij got off the boat. This is just continuation of the tradition.

Regarding the role of the bishops in the Church, the remarks of Napoleon's uncle, Cardinal Fesch, are illuminating. Negotiating with the Emperor over ecclesiastical affairs, Fesch infuriated his nephew, who flew into one of his famous imperial rages. "If you do not do what I want, I will destroy the Church!" he thundered. Fesch gave him a rue smile and said, "Sire, we bishops have been trying to do that for 1800 years, and have not succeeded yet".

So why invest the money in the RDL? A combination of vanity, one man's vainglorious attempt to put his permanent mark on the Church, and the inability of unwillingness of the other bishops to stand up to a bully. The Ruthenian bishops do not have anything approaching either the self-confidence or the intellectual horsepower found in the Melkite or Ukrainian synods. In fact, they have a monumental inferiority complex, and really want nothing less than to be left in peace until they reach retirement age. Which is one reason for closing down otherwise profitable parishes and socking the money from sale of the property away in retirement funds. Apres nous, le deluge!

"Oooh...can I make that phrase my own? I like it."

I hold copyright, I think. But I'll cede it to you if you let me keep "Elkoism with a human face".

---

Quelle dommage! Then why not just shut it all down and merge it into the UGCC now? It just doesn't make sense, Stuart. If the business is liquidated and the doors are closing in 5 minutes, why all the fuss with a new Liturgy.

If there is not a future for the BCC, why is Parma holding a 40th Anniversary celebration this summer?

And why hasn't Rome stepped in? Surely they know something is wrong?

It does not compute.

"Then why not just shut it all down and merge it into the UGCC now? "

It would make sense, and I actually had the temerity to suggest it to my priest once. Amazing the lengths to which the Rusyn will go to maintain their ecclesial independence, even though, by all rights, the Carpatho-Rusyn Church should be an autonomous metropolitan province under the Patriarchate of Kyiv. And, if they thought about it rationally, the Ruthenians would see the benefits of this arrangement. But, big fish in a small pond syndrome.

"If there is not a future for the BCC, why is Parma holding a 40th Anniversary celebration this summer?"

How old is General Motors?

"And why hasn't Rome stepped in? Surely they know something is wrong?"

Rome wants us to grow up and act like adults. That won't happen if they keep bailing us out. Kind of like the way in which GM will never implement the reforms it needs as long as it knows Uncle Sugar will keep pulling its chestnuts out of the fire. Maybe Rome is willing to see the Ruthenian Church go Chapter 11, because, let's face it, we're not "too big to fail".

Some of us recommended that years ago (I did when I started on this Forum six years ago). The most developed hierarchal structure of any Eastern Church is, of course, a patriarchate with a functioning Synod.

The BCCA seems to be embarking on a new modern American particularity even farther removed from its ecclesial roots. My term at the beginning of the RDL process (actually even back to the 1984 proto-RDL Parma liturgikon promulgated by Bishop +Andrew and written by Fr. David) was "neolatinization".

I do not think Rome will intervene in the RDL affair. It is seen as far lower priority given much bigger-profile problems in Rome (SSPX, Fr. Maciel, and a myriad of other things just involving the Latin Church), and it is seen by Rome as an internal affair of a small Church sui iuris.

After Rome writing several documents during and after Vatican II stating the Eastern Churches should be taking care of more things themselves, I simply do not see any quick intervention, or likely any intervention at all.

Isolated in their ivory towers?

Every person involved in the RDL, from the bishops to the members of the liturgical commission, have been actively engaged in the ministry of our Church. These men are not professionals engaged in purely academic pursuits. They are the pastors of our parish communities. They are catechists, counselors, and spiritual directors. They are engaged in the formation of our future clergy. My own pastor has been and is still currently a member of the liturgical commission. Even our eparchs come from the ranks of the presbyterate and have served parish communities. Two men I have been privileged to address as, "Your Grace," Bishop +George (Kuzma),of blessed memory, and Bishop Gerald (Dino), have served or serve as the episcopal chair of the liturgical commission. These men, as the Eparch of Van Nuys, have not been "isolated in their ivory towers," nor have they sought to impress anyone.

So, just who are these authors that are "isolated in their ivory towers"? One may not agree with the RDL, but to accuse the authors of being "isolated in their ivory towers" at best reflects an ignorance of the men who serve our Church or an ignorance of the meaning of the term, "ivory tower". At worst, this statement is a conscious effort to engage in calumny.

Rome wanted to merge the Pittsburgh Exarchate into the Ukrainian Catholic church sixty ago. It had to be an almost done deal because Bishop Ivancho fled to Rome to plead the case of keeping them separate. He won.

"Some of us recommended that years ago (I did when I started on this Forum six years ago). The most developed hierarchal structure of any Eastern Church is, of course, a patriarchate with a functioning Synod."

If you will remember, I was blacklisted from this site for going one further, and suggesting that all the Eastern Catholic seminaries be closed down and we send our candidates either to Holy Cross or St. Vladimir's.

To Deacon John:

Who were the primary authors? Why were the driving forces behind the change? What were their qualifications? How can you stand behind what they did?

By their fruits shall ye know them. The failure of the hierarchy to directly address the concerns of the faithful, both before and after promulgation of the RDL, points to their isolation. Their failure to recognize the catastrophe unfolding in the Metropolia speaks to their lack of moral courage.

Deacon John,

The criticism is not wholly without truth. I think the individual in the ivory tower who approved of the RDL and wanted even more drastic changes ends his name with the initials, S.J.

Part of the dynamic of the RDL is the tension that often exists in modern times between Bishop and scholar. S.J. is, of course, quite the scholar. Unfortunately he holds some opinions that don't square well with the magisterium. So when confronted with the opinions of S.J., the worlds preminent scholar on things Byzantine (and I note that the timing of the approval of the RDL at the Oriental Congregation and the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam are remarkable), it appears that the Bishops may have been somewhat intimidated by him.

Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) hit the nail on the lead in his book review in 2004:



http://www.adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.html

Perhaps rhetorical questions, but the composition of the IELC is a matter of public record, and has been posted on the forum, link.

My question in that post was about accountability and responsibility, citing one prominent issue:




I used the issue of "inclusivity" as an example, inquiring about the "driving force behind the change." That issue is openly acknowledged (in the Metropolia's catechetical DVD on the RDL) as something desired and intended. It has asserted a profound impact on the liturgy, is very controversial, and yet no one seems to have proposed it, to take responsibility for it or is willing to justify or defend it with facts, data and convincing arguments.



Too sad if true. A current thread attempts to explore the issue and evaluate the process: Hear the other side

This present thread topic asks "Does the RDL reveal a lack of hope?" That must be put in the context of the facts, proper judgment and a correct protocol. The protocol appears to have been followed and the documentation is in order although it has not been made public as noted several times on this forum. Should/did/does the protocol include hearing the other side and addressing it?

The Challenger launch was, for sure, full of hope, but was shown in retrospect to have been the disaster it was because of ignored facts, sidestepping protocol, and faulty judgment.

"Perhaps rhetorical questions, but the composition of the IELC is a matter of public record, and has been posted on the forum, link."

That wasn't quite the question I asked. Within every large committee or commission, there may be many members, but only a handful do the majority of the work, and of those, perhaps just two or three actually take control of the process. Those of us who have worked in that kind of environment know the dynamic. It is quite clear that the liturgical reform took the direction it did, and the RDL has the form that it does, because of the initiative of just a few people. The rest were along for the ride.

"That issue is openly acknowledged (in the Metropolia's catechetical DVD on the RDL) as something desired and intended, asserting a profound impact on the liturgy, very controversial, and yet no one seems to have proposed it, to take responsibility for it or is willing to justify or defend it with facts, data and convincing arguments."

Those who know the participants can point the finger of responsibility with a high degree of confidence, based on that persons own writings before, during and after the promulgation of the RDL. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Why this person would not want to admit his role and accept responsibility is also obvious in light of the results of his initiative.

"This present thread topic asks "Does the RDL reveal a lack of hope?" That must be put in the context of the facts, proper judgment and a correct protocol. The protocol appears to have been followed and the documentation is in order although it has not been made public as noted several times on this forum. Should/did/does the protocol include hearing the other side and addressing it?"

Those of us who work in Washington are quite familiar with a bureaucratic strategy called "malicious compliance"--a form of institutional passive aggression. When asked to do something with which it disagrees, the bureaucracy chooses a path of compliance that causes the most damage and inconvenience to everybody else. For example, when the Park Service is asked to cut its budget by 1%, it announces that the Washington Monument will be closed to tourists because of "budget cuts". "There, we did what you wanted", the bureaucrats say. "What? That's not what you meant? You should have been more specific".

I'm not saying this applies to the RDL as a conscious conspiracy of clerics, but it sure does look like it.

IM,

To one who may be recently registering on the Forum he may be of the opinion that the BCC was flourishing before the RDL. We know that is not true (this is unfortunately happening in many Eastern and Western Churches). If the Ruthenian rescension was made mandatory in every parish do you honestly believe that people would flock to the Church? You always will have a minority who will be upset with the music, no matter which version is used.

I don't believe the RDL was the product of any ONE man. With the progression through different layers of approval it surely must have been a composite, so while a consensus approval was accomplished it's doubtful that any one person considered it "perfect."

Is our virtue of Hope so shallow that we are disillusioned over challenged wording? If it is then perhaps our Faith is overreliant upon the Divine Liturgy and understates living "the Way, the Truth and the Life."

The orthodox (small "o") wing of the BCC insisted for the end of kneeling, removal of Holy Water fonts, removal of Stations, "approved" iconostases, and various other issues. We have moved beyond this and yet we STILL are ashamed of our Church and see other Eastern Churches as superior.

Please forgive me for oversimplifying, but will our people ever be happy? Maybe our failure isn't with the Divine Liturgy, or Matins, or Vespers, but perhaps we forget to thank God for the gift of Faith. It is Faith, not overmagnified excerpts of the Divine Liturgy which will help us when we face the "Just Judge" after our pilgrimage here on earth.

Circumstances came about that I attended the Akathist to the Mother of God at an Orthodox Church this past Saturday. I dropped my other committment to attend because I love this service. But the only people in attendance were my wife and I, the priest, and two people singing the responses (and it was beautifully done). As I read the projected expectations often expressed on this Forum, I should think that at least one third to one half of the congregation should have been present (since the RDL isn't an issue.)

Praying for Christ's graces to all this Holy Week,
Fr. Deacon Paul

So, Paul B.,

How long does one have to belong to the Ruthenian Church before one is considered "qualified" to have a meaningful opinion about it? As I said, I was baptized into this Church as an adult, having no prior connections to it. I chose to be a Ruthenian, and as such, I have taken a serious interest in the history and fortunes of the Church. I may not be related to fifteen priests, deacons and bishops on both sides of my family, but I have one advantage over most of those born in the Ruthenian Church--I can be objective about it. I have no dog in any of the ethnic or jurisdictional conflicts, and I can put them into their proper perspective. Furthermore, as an historian, I am trained to examine evidence, recognize trends and extrapolate both causes and effects.

I know how the Church was doing prior to the RDL. I know most of the reasons why. I also know that since the RDL, parishes that were flourishing are dying, and parishes that were dying have not been revived.

I don't believe the RD: was the product of one man, I believe it was the product of three men, each of whom had an agenda, each of whom rode roughshod over any opposition both before and after.

Your comments on "wording" reflect a real ignorance of the history of the Church. Words have meaning, and most of the deepest, most serious crises and controversies in the Church were fought over words and their meanings. If you think that the Divine Liturgy is just some adjunct of our faith, and not its central core, the source and touchstone of our theology and our spirituality, then not only do you not understand liturgy, you don't agree with the Catholic Church itself, which has identified liturgy as the most pure and perfect expression of the Christian faith. If the liturgy is not worth fighting about, what is?

"We have moved beyond this and yet we STILL are ashamed of our Church and see other Eastern Churches as superior."

That's because Ruthenians haven't made up their minds what they want to be. I believe the majority do not wish to be either Orthodox in Communion with Rome, or Latins with a cabaret license. I think most believe they can be something "in between"--neither fish nor fowl, but unique. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. The "third way" is not only unviable, it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself.

We, as Eastern Catholics, are called upon to manifest the possibility of being fully Eastern and fully Catholic, living in accordance with the Tradition of our particular rites. As Byzantine Catholics, we are called upon to live in accordance with the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition, to eliminate all distinctions between us and our Orthodox counterparts. Amazing, how many people during my years as an ECF teacher and as a member of a Ruthenian parish, I would explain why some particular usage, belief or expression was properly Orthodox, only to be told, "But we're not Orthodox, we're Catholic". And, for that matter, how many people want nothing at all to do with the Orthodox, but would rather travel across town to attend Mass at a Roman Catholic church, than to attend any service at an Orthodox parish, even if just down the block.

Therein lies the problem--you guys don't know what you are, and you don't know what you are supposed to be. In contrast, most of the other Greek Catholic jurisdictions with which I am familiar don't have this problem. They know what they are, they know what they want to be, and they know their ultimate destiny is to fold back into their Orthodox Mother Churches on that day--so deeply desired and anticipated--when communion between the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome is reestablished.

I have heard a Melkite Patriarch say that he is an Orthodox Christian. I have heard a Ukrainian Patriarch say there is no difference between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics. I have been told by a Romanian Orthodox priest (in Romania, no less!) that there is no reason why he can't give the Eucharist to a Greek Catholic ("Is the same thing!"). I have yet to hear any Ruthenian priest, deacon or bishop make such a commitment to the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition. I did hear a Ruthenian monk make such a statement, but, predictably, his monastery is no longer associated with the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Until such a commitment is made, with heart and mind, and is backed up with intelligent actions tempered by pastoral awareness, the Ruthenian Church will continue to fade away. The promulgation of the RDL merely accelerated the slide.

Stuart,

We obviously don't have the same perspective. Perhaps I am one of "you guys" but I am what I am. I am not ashamed of my Church and have feel no need to make any apologies; I don't feel that other Apostolic Churches are superior (or inferior.)

With the grace of God, my objective is to serve my God and upon my falling asleep, to be in His presence, whether in Heaven or the place of purgation. And I pray that I may be helpful for those in my parish to find the same end.

I have "no dog" in a fight to justify in human terms why Rusyn Greek Catholics should choose to be Orthodox OR Catholic. My humble feeling is that it is a scandal that we are divided. Obviously, over the centuries, many people feel as you do, that "wording" is ALL important. Maybe, just maybe, THAT is why we can't freely receive the Precious Body and Blood of Christ in each other's Church.

Fr Deacon Paul

Father Deacon,



My parish out West was flourishing. There were lots of children. The outreach I was working to establish was moving along very well and those in the outreach had a premier program for fostering vocations.

One of the reasons the Ruthenian Church has been dying is because like much of the Catholic Church the traditional teaching of the Church as reiterated in Humanae Vitae has largely been ignored.

I am a very practical man. I have never said that the Ruthenian Recension be mandated. Nevertheless, it should never have been banned. But when the ideal is banned and something less than ideal is made the required norm, there is a problem.



I agree that Liturgy by committee doesn't work.



Since we're not concerned with words, how about "the Path, the Suggestion and the Presence." Get my point? The faith has been handed down to us in very specific words, it's called a Creed. No Bishop has the authority to change it. It has been added to, but never has anything been dropped from it. (N.B. I have no problem with the removal of the filioque because that is our Eastern heritage and the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople remains normative.)



The RDL is teaching children that the words in which the fundamental expression of our faith is expressed can be changed. What kind of faith is that? The early martyrs would not even offer a pinch of incense to the "gods," but we'll tweak the Creed because it makes some feminist uncomfortable.

Thank you for your prayers. May you also have blessed Holy Week.

lm

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD...

Paul,

I was baptized into the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church on Theophany Sunday 1996. That was nigh on 13 years ago. So how long DO I have to hang around before my opinion counts for something?

On the scandalous divisions between us and our Orthodox brethren, I note among many of the Ruthenian faithful a very deep commitment to reconciliation and Christian unity. My own life in the Church has been focused on that objective, and much grief it has caused me, too. I note that this desire for unity does not seem to be reciprocated by our leaders, none of whom (save Metropolitan Judson, may his memory be eternal) has ever gone out of his way to make a gesture towards even our Orthodox Rusyn brothers. In fact, under Bishop Andrew, many obstacles were thrown in the path of those of us who wished to engage in more visible ecumenical outreach (for that matter, I did not get too much assistance or moral support when I tried to encourage greater cooperation among the various Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in our area).

I think I have said enough on this subject until after Pascha. Now is the time to put aside all earthly cares.

This post is unfortunate coming from someone who is a moderator.

Why are you baiting people into naming names, so that their posts can be deleted and perhaps their posting privileges taken away?


Monomakh

Monomakh's post is unfortunate because it takes one sentence out of Fr. Dcn. John's post and attributes a malicious intention to Fr. Dcn. John which is not at all clear from a reading of the entire post itself.

Ryan

Stuart: one quibble. The instruction wasn't to translate from the Slavonic, but to restore the liturgy from the authentic sources. Our Ruthenian-American Metropolitan bishops opted to be apparently antiquarian, and work from the Greek, rather than the Ordo or the Slavonic.

I may not, personally, agree with that decision... but it's not in violation.

The wording choices? Not nearly as bad as the ICEL Roman.

Could be far worse.

And many of the Byzantine churches are doing new translations. The Melkite revised DL of St John is on the web... just different enough to throw me off. Each synod is responsible for its own liturgy, and for following the orders to restore and renew in an organic manner.

"Stuart: one quibble. The instruction wasn't to translate from the Slavonic, but to restore the liturgy from the authentic sources. Our Ruthenian-American Metropolitan bishops opted to be apparently antiquarian, and work from the Greek, rather than the Ordo or the Slavonic."

That's the kind of tendentious reasoning that landed the bishops in the mess they are in. The "authentic sources" for the Ruthenian Churches (i.e., the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) is the 1942 Slavonic Recension issued by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches--at the express request of the Greek Catholics themselves! The Council of Bishops has no authority to elevate another normative source.

Furthermore, from a methodological standpoint, relying on the Greek is fatally flawed: the Greek sources are newer than the Slavonic ones. Either way, it's a shoddy piece of workmanship, in which there are manifest errors that cannot be explained by recourse to the Greek, wild swings between excessive literalness and broad paraphrase, and a general selection of language that is flat, uninspirational, and in places, downright ugly.

That this is "better" than previous efforts by ICEL in the Latin rite is damning with faint praise indeed. As I have said before, one should not take Chesterton's aphorism that "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly" as the threshold for quality control in liturgical translations. "Close enough for liturgy" ought to be purged from our minds.

This is a point that needs to be said, repeated, and then said yet again -- and it has been. It seems one cannot say it enough. One question then is what was the mandate and rationale for the RDL process?

The other question is, have the bishops determined they do have the authority to do so? Another question is, do the bishops, and other supporters of the RDL, realize and acknowledge they have done so?

"The other question is, have the bishops determined they do have the authority to do so? Another question is, do the bishops, and other supporters of the RDL, realize and acknowledge they have done so? "

If they have, it is interesting that they would choose an area as fundamental as the liturgy in which to declare their independence of Rome, while simultaneously deferring to Rome on mundane matters of discipline such as the ordination of married men to the presbyterate.

The RDL is in direct violation of the Liturgical Instruction in several ways.

The Instruction directs that rediscovering and living the liturgical tradition precedes updating (section 18). For Ruthenians this means finally promulgating and celebrating according the books our earlier bishops asked Rome to prepare and letting that worship form the Church anew.

In Sections 21 & 25 the Instruction directs working with the Orthodox "distancing from [them] as little as is possible." The expectation is that Ruthenian Catholics would work with others (Catholics and Orthodox) to keep the same standard Liturgy.

Section 25 directs common translations of common liturgical books. The Ecumenical Directory (n. 187) exhorts the same. Difficult at present, yet steps could have been taken to do so and certainly the structure of the Liturgy could have been left alone. [And Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown is on record as seeking common books and willing to work towards them.]

The RDL violates Liturgiam Authenticam in that the translation is not from the official liturgical books promulgated by Rome (in Church Slavonic), in that the books and translation are incomplete, in that the translation is in many places inaccurate and doctrinally problematic, and that it uses a style of translation (gender neutral) that is forbidden by LA (we see this in the removal of the word "man" from the Creed and the replacement of the inclusive term "mankind" with the potentially exclusive "all of us").

The RDL violates Canon Law (Canon 40-1) in that it does not "most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians."

The authentic forms described in the Instruction in Section 16 are the authentic and official forms and texts promulgated by Rome for the Ruthenian recension. The reference to "eliminating that which has altered them" is one to eliminating latinizaton, not the official, normative liturgical books.

The restoration directed and expected in Section 16 is not to some debatable ancient form but rather to official forms.


That's sort of like saying that Burger King is not so nearly as bad as McDonalds. But some of the the wording choices are in violation of the Vatican directives. And we see the Romans moving to correct their translations to make them as literally accurate as is possible.

There are numerous threads in this forum that explore the various problems with the RDL that you may want to study (and check out Father Serge Keleher's excellent book book on the topic). The worst problems with the RDL, of course, are the ones that are doctrinally problematic ("theologically grave" to use the exact words of Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired) when he spoke to these same issues in the Latin Church).

We see in "Summorum Pontificum" that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has guaranteed the right of the faithful to have access to and the priests to celebrate the Mass according to he 1962 Missal (an older, extraordinary form). It may take a bit for appeals to reach him but I have no doubt that he will uphold the right of the faithful to have access to and the right the priests to celebrate the normative, ordinary form of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy (the books promulgated by Rome).

Burger King is marginally better than MacDonald's. But I still wouldn't "honor" anyone with an invitation to eat at Burger King!

Fr. Serge