What about the Ruthenians? How did they become the odd man out? The RDL adopts the worst of what was done in the name of Vatican II but was not really intended by Vatican II. Archbishop Basil made a political statement with the Liturgy. One that places it solidly with the American political left and the secular feminists. How did this happen? How did they get infiltrated while other Greek Catholics stood strong in the faith? What can be done to fix the problem?

(emphasis mine - pb

Dear Lady,

I think you really sensationalized the issue. First the translation revision didn't have anything to do with Vatican II. Archbishop called for the revision as a result of "Ligh of the East." Calling the RDL the worst change in the Catholic Church is really wrong. You don't mean to be this malicious, do you?

Christ is Risen!
Fr Deacon Paul

I agree with Deacon Paul that Lady Byzantine overly sensationalizes the problems with the RDL. She could have made her point with more charity.

I disagree with him on the other points. The general theology behind the Revised Divine Liturgy is from the same "school" from which many of the changes to the Roman Rite came from. This is natural. People are a product of their education and those that manufactured the Revised Divine Liturgy were formed in that era, and that is what has been taught in our seminary.

I am not aware that the Archbishop has used "Orientale Lumen" ("Light from the East") as a major justification for the Revision. If one reads that wonderful document one does not see any justification for the Revision. [If Father Deacon has written details I'd appreciate them.] Further, if one studies the Liturgical Instruction one can easily see that the Archbishop openly rejected many parts of this very specific directive (especially the parts about restoring official forms before updating, and then updating only along with other Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox). Finally, while the details of Liturgiam Authenticam are about the Roman Liturgy the principles directed there (translate completely and accurately) were not optional. Sections like #92 expect the Catholic Eastern Churches to follow the general principles given in LA, as well as to work with other Easterners (Catholic and Orthodox). There are clear doctrinal problems with the Revised texts, noted by no less the the now retired head of the Congregation of Divine Worship. But I've quoted these at length in other discussions.

John,

My reply is late because I wanted to do some research to back up my statement. The original response was general because the important part of my response addressed what I felt was a very unfair comment.

In my opinion Vatican II was extremely BENEFICIAL for the Eastern Catholic Churches. I call your attention to:
DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff. (emphasis mine)

This was monumental; no longer are the Eastern Churches subservient or inferior to the Latin Rite! We are equal in our rights and responsibilities in the Universal Church.

The Latin Rite abuses and misunderstandings were not authorized by Vatical II. Being charitable, I would say that they were a result of a vacuum...not knowing the details of implementing the desired changes. The people were told by the media of all the changes that were coming; change was expected and liturgists were forced to abide. (Wow, does the word "change" ring a bell??)

We have a very variance of opinion regarding the initiation of what has become commonly called the RDL. I don't know what year the initiative was begun; I'm of the opinion that Archbishop Judsen authorized it in the mid 90's. (I request correction if this is wrong.) Based on this presumption, go back and look at what was happening at that time. After the fall of Communism Pope John Paul was actively trying his best to set the tone for reconciliation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. He drove hard to encourage the eastern Catholic Churches to purge latinizations and to be as common as possible to the Orthodox so that they would see that upon re-union they would be treated as equals and with respect...without heavy handed forced change.

I can go into detail with the exhortations of Pope JPII to the Eastern Catholics but it is so verbose that most of our readers will be turned off by the enormous post, so please permit me to post just the occasions and dates below:

VATICAN II PRAISED EASTERN TRADITIONS Pope John Paul II
General Audience 9 August 1995

WE EXTEND OUR ARMS IN BROTHERHOOD Pope John Paul II
HOLY FATHER ENCOURAGES CATHOLIC PATRIARCHS TO HELP RESTORE FULL UNITY WITH ORTHODOX CHURCHES, L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English 7 October 1998, page 7

FOURTH CENTENARY OF THE UNION OF BREST Pope John Paul II
Apostolic Letter of the Supreme Pontiff issued November 12, 1995

VATICAN II PRAISED EASTERN TRADITIONS Pope John Paul II
General Audience August 9, 1995

MESSAGE TO CARDINAL SILVESTRINI Pope John Paul II
Eastern Churches called to twofold fidelity. L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 17 November 1999, page 9

APOSTOLIC LETTER ORIENTALE LUMEN
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL TO MARK THE CENTENARY OF ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS OF POPE LEO XIII, May 2, 1995

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches


If one reads these sources one emphatically gets the message that the Greek Catholics must purge Latinizations and restore the true Eastern Liturgical worship and traditions. If you recall this period there was a purging of Stations, Holy Water fonts, discouragement of any kneeling, restoration of Ektenia, restoration of infant Communion, banning of First Communion ceremonies, elimation of May Crownings, purging of Benediction, etc, etc, etc. The proposed Divine Liturgy would consolidate these changes with new books and an official promulgation.

I read with surprise your post that Father Robert Taft is claiming that revision, update, reinterpretation, etc should be considered "verboten." When he spoke at the Sts Cyril & Methodius Lecture Fr Taft encouraged a simplified Vespers service to be offered at homes and workplaces. His comments now appear to me to be a complete reversal, but that is only my humble opinion.

I can see WHY Father Taft has now pronounced his objection to change... Pandorra's box was opened! Even with good intentions some changes were made which were not agreeable. Those who were happy with the good old Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy are unhappy. Those who wanted the Divine Liturgy to be identical to the ________ (fill in your own nationality or patriarchate) Orthodox Church are unhappy. It's a lose-lose situation; everyone is unhappy. I'm sure that throughout the centuries this has been repeated many times....yet the common opinion is that the wise Church Fathers always had a mandate and everyone was pleased.

I take the position of obedience to my Bishop; this is what is promulgated and I'm not wiser than he. The Mystery of the Eucharist is not diminished with the changes; the Gospel message is the same as before. The only thing which changed is my human comfort level, the flesh (my prideful ego) is weak so I must deny myself of my wonderful "liturgical expertise" and repent for my falling to the persuasion of the Evil One.

So these, for what they are worth, are my thoughts.

Christ is risen! Let us rejoice and be glad.

Fr. Deacon Paul

" read with surprise your post that Father Robert Taft is claiming that revision, update, reinterpretation, etc should be considered "verboten." When he spoke at the Sts Cyril & Methodius Lecture Fr Taft encouraged a simplified Vespers service to be offered at homes and workplaces. His comments now appear to me to be a complete reversal, but that is only my humble opinion."

Say, rather, that Father Taft has returned to the stance he explicitly espoused for some thirty-odd years, as is shown in his anthology "Beyond East and West". Also, there is no contradiction between his desire for a simplified Vespers service for home use, and his desire to see the full liturgical celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. In fact, he made the case for both in "The Liturgy of the Hours in the East and West", and that was a long, long time ago. There is in fact room for both, but Vatican II made very clear that the Liturgy of the Hours is part of the liturgical heritage of the universal Church, and it made their restoration as such a high priority--one which, unfortunately, the Church has not managed to achieve. As Taft himself put it, the Liturgy of the Hours is intended to be celebrated congregationally by the Church--it is not a prayer book for priests, religious and the particularly devout.

"The only thing which changed is my human comfort level, the flesh (my prideful ego) is weak so I must deny myself of my wonderful "liturgical expertise" and repent for my falling to the persuasion of the Evil One. "

If you believe this is why people object to the Revised Divine Liturgy you do them a grave disservice. It is, in fact, remarks such as yours that cause those of us who have profound theological and spiritual difficulties with the new text feel that our views are being ignored, marginalized and denigrated by the hierarchy of the Ruthenian Church. "You'll get used to it" is not a rational response to legitimate objections. Moreover, you seem to be taking G.K. Chesterton's aphorism that "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly" and raising it to the norm of acceptability.

"Those who were happy with the good old Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy are unhappy. Those who wanted the Divine Liturgy to be identical to the ________ (fill in your own nationality or patriarchate) Orthodox Church are unhappy. It's a lose-lose situation; everyone is unhappy."

You left out one other group that is unhappy, Fr. Deacon: Those of us who wanted the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission to fulfill its mandate of providing a full, accurate, reverential and beautiful translation of the full Ruthenian Recension, and who want nothing more nor less than the opportunity to worship according to that recension in a manner appropriate to our specific parochial situation.

Well said Fr. Deacon.

I must say that I do not find this well said at all. Relative to our Pastors, we indeed are to be faithful sheep. But as the Akathist reminds us, we are properly rational sheep. "The Mystery of the Eucharist" and "the Gospel message" were not diminished before the changes either. The problem is when a change, like this change, only produces change, and that coming at a cost: some very questionable chant renderings and interpretations via a chant monopoly (the Teal Tyrant) that is foreign to our tradition, manipulated rubrics no longer conforming to the Ordo, an unsupported embracing of a criterion of inclusive language that does diminish the prior explicit doctrinal content of our prayers, all this in a now abridged version of the liturgy in English that prohibits the full version (e.g. the 1965 liturgicon) that faithfully corresponds to the Slavonic of our Recension. Is this progress?

Let's be rational sheep. As financial and moral scandals have made all too clear, let's have the courage to tell our bishops that they're wrong -- even when it's not about the "important stuff," sex and money, but only the liturgy.

We're off the topic.

I think rather not.

Father Deacon Paul,

Thank you for the post. I think you are missing the point here. With the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy the Council of Hierarchs rejected the clear directives from Rome to restore the Liturgy to that given in the official Ruthenian books. Instead they remodeled the Liturgy according to the principles used to reform the Roman Liturgy back in the 1970s & 1980s. If you spend some time with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)’s “Spirit of the Liturgy” you can see this quite clearly. There is nothing more Eastern in the 2007 RDL than there was in the 1964 translation.

Regarding Father Taft, others have responded to that. He, too, calls for authentic renewal of Liturgy to official forms. The problem – again – with the Ruthenian Revised Divine Liturgy is that it rejects the Roman directives and creates a Third Way. It is inauthentic, and demonstrably so.

You wrote: “Those who wanted the Divine Liturgy to be identical to the ________ (fill in your own nationality or patriarchate) Orthodox Church are unhappy. It's a lose-lose situation; everyone is unhappy.”

But that misses the point. Rome directed the bishops to restore the Liturgy to a very specific form. The bishops refused this directive from Rome and instead revised it according to their own ideas. We have discussed this at great length on the Forum but I happen to have a pdf file that was used as part of my original letter to the bishops. I have posted it at this thread.

You mention disobedience. No one is advocating disobedience. As a deacon you obey your archbishop. Obedience, however, does not require blindness. You or anyone else can be obedient while also seeking what is right, and working to correct what is wrong.

This is not a matter of comfort level or pride. This is a matter of doing what is right (i.e., following what Rome has directed). What is required here is an accurate and complete translation of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension. The bishops have not done that and it is right and proper to call them to do that, and to appeal to Rome to ask Rome to force them to do that.

Christ is Risen!

John

PS: Yes, this thread is off topic. I will break it into a new thread when I get a chance.

PPS: Link to the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam. Even if one just casually reads them one can discern how the RDL violates these directives.

Let's set aside emotions and be objective. This topic started out "What protected Eastern Catholicism from the .......innovations that crept into the Latin Rite Churches beginning in the 1960's"

Then Lady Byzantine posted, The RDL adopts the worst of what was done in the name of Vatican II but was not really intended by Vatican II. Archbishop Basil made a political statement with the Liturgy. I rebutted that the "RDL" was not the result of Vatican II but rather was a response initiated by Archbishop Judsen to re-introduce authentic Eastern liturgy, among with other non-latinized traditions. When the administrator challenged my position I clarifed my reasoning with some flavor of the Eastern Catholic persuasions at the time. The fact that it didn't completely meet the objective is immaterial TO THIS TOPIC.

This discussion is not on "Revised Divine Liturgy" forum so I see no logical reason for Stuart's comment It is, in fact, remarks such as yours that cause those of us who have profound theological and spiritual difficulties with the new text feel that our views are being ignored, marginalized and denigrated by the hierarchy of the Ruthenian Church I don't know Stuart so maybe he is theologically and spiritually more sophisticated than I, but......a deacon in the hinterlands of northwestern Pennsylvania is definitely not "hierarchy."

Also, John I mentioned "my obedience", I didn't comment about "disobedience." For those who disagree with liturgical practice, you have every right to express disfavor as long as it's respectful. And the Administrator has done that admirably, while offering constructive alternatives.

I DO object to being derided for offering posts on the forum with which some people may disagree.

Now....can we set this aside and continue "on topic" please?

Indeed He is risen!

Fr Deacon Paul

I have been wanting to comment on this for several days but thought it should be a new spin-off thread in the RDL forum. Since the off-topic posts of this thread will be moved there (I presume), as per the Administrator's post, I’m posting it here and it can then just go along with the move.

Most pertinent to this discussion is a misunderstanding, from my perspective, of a number of posts, both critical and supportive of the RDL, exemplified by the above quote, and pointedly and I'd say accurately described in the post:



Using the initial quote as an example, all the purgings noted save one were done prior to and without the need of the RDL promulgation. That in itself says something about the need for an RDL-type revision. The effective “discouragement of any kneeling” is an RDL initiative and unfortunate result that has caused a lot of confusion, and may be doing more harm than good. The point is that the promulgation of new books could either be done in accord with the integrity of the Ruthenian Recension or not. That brings us to the last statement in the initial quote which I repeat:



That may be so, and those who argue for an number of arbitrary fill in the blanks, or imply that’s all it is, as in the quote, are making the “remarks such as yours” properly critiqued in the second (the StuartK) quote. For a number of us, the _____________ is not arbitrary. We argue for what we have been taught, and what is still acknowledged, as OUR liturgical heritage, the Ruthenian Recension. THAT is the only choice that properly fills in the blank. That’s the issue and what is at stake.

The origninal Ruthenian Recension texts provided by Rome are available (see Ruthenian Recension link). Study them; compare and evaluate the English translations we have, Study Text, and ask how and why they vary. Then at least explain the numerous significant departures found in the RDL and why they were necessary relative to the Recension version.

Related personal vignettes and anecdotal comments about experienced liturgies etc. are interesting and provide background, but a proper discussion of the RDL issue, both pro and con, must be filtered through the standard of the Ruthenian Recension texts unless and until those in authority declare and hopefully explain why those texts -- the Ruthenian Recension -- may no longer be the standard.

"I rebutted that the "RDL" was not the result of Vatican II but rather was a response initiated by Archbishop Judsen to re-introduce authentic Eastern liturgy, among with other non-latinized traditions. When the administrator challenged my position I clarifed my reasoning with some flavor of the Eastern Catholic persuasions at the time. The fact that it didn't completely meet the objective is immaterial TO THIS TOPIC."

The Vatican II Liturgical Commission was given a specific mandate, which was to restore the Roman rite to something resembling its "pristine", considered by most liturgists to have been some time around the 8th-9th centuries, prior to the introduction of the hybrid Romano-Gallic rite which became the basis for all the medieval Roman rites. However, the Commission chose not to follow its mandate, but went off on its own track to create an "updated" and "relevant" liturgy that said more about the enthusiasms and predilections of its authors than about the authentic Roman Rite.

In like manner, the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission was given a mandate, as noted above. Rather than fulfill its mandate, it chose instead to create a new liturgy, one which, we are told (against all evidence) is more "authentically Byzantine" than that which it supersedes.

Lady Byzantine is absolutely correct in stating the RDL recapitulates most of the problems inherent in the revised Roman rite some forty years ago, including the methodology employed in its compilation, its abandonment of continuity with the preceding liturgy, its embrace of quotidian theological and liturgical fads, its use of a rather base colloquialism in place of even the mildly hieratic language of its predecessor, and its ruthless suppression of popular pious practices without regard for pastoral prudence.

Indeed, it is in the implementation of the RDL that parallels to the reform of the Roman rite are most apparent. In both cases, a top-down, authoritarian approach was used without adequate pastoral preparation or consultation with the parish priests and the laity. In both cases, objections were ruthlessly beaten back with a combination of threats, curt dismissals, and pseudo-academic smoke screens.

After some forty years, it is now widely recognized in the Latin Church that its liturgical reform was radically flawed, and no less a person than the current Pope has pointed out aspects of the reformed liturgy that were either inherently flawed or imperfectly implemented, and who has thus called for reform of the reform (and, please, try to remember in all this that I am no great fan of the Tridentine Rite).

The question remains whether it will take as long for the hierarchy of the Ruthenian Church, or for that matter, the Oriental Congregation, or even the Holy Father himself, to come to the same realization and call for a reform of the reform of the Ruthenian rite as celebrated in the United States. The other question is whether, by that time, the entire exercise will be moot.

I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

The answer in short to the original question is...Nothing.

We have the same/similar problems as the RCs. Where did you get that idea that we were isolated from the Post Vatican II issues of the whole Church, as we were represented there as well. We share the good and the bad.

A good question, and it deserves an answer. Here are my two cents, and two possible answers.

I think the Committee to Revise the Liturgy really thought that they would be hailed as leaders and progressives. They fully expected that everyone would see their scholarship as inspired, and that they would be praised for their courage, something like a 'Great Leap Forward' and a model of renewal. It was going to be a lasting gift to the Church, and generations would mark this moment as wonderfully inclusive and inspired by the Holy Spirit everyone would thank those who made it happen.

I think they have been seriously disappointed that their scholarship is so discredited by the scholars, their new 'professional' music is worse than what was happily sung by 'illiterate' cantors and congregations, and their popular movement has proved so unpopular.

I don't think they expected that everyone would hate the 'green book' as much as they do. These books sit in the pews, no one picks them up, no one participates. Rather than move Liturgical participation among the faithful forward, for most of us, it has been a great leap backward. My parish used to sing, now, Liturgy is a duo between priest and cantor, a shadow of the Liturgy that used to be. Those of us who are left just shake our heads at the waste. So much for inclusivity. The Committee still doesn't understand why no one is thanking them. They can't fathom why the green books are so hated, they meant well. Maybe it was because there wasn't enough catechesis? Maybe it was because the pastors' weren't behind the project? Maybe it was because our people are too stubborn? Maybe...

Why is the Ruthenian Church the odd man out? Well, the positive interpretation is that the Committee wanted to 'lead', and it just didn't work out they way they hoped it would. A dream opportunity, lost.

A more cynical interpretation, is that the Bishops really wanted a way to finally and permanently separate themselves and our Church from every other Byzantine Church. And so the authorities used these poor priests on the committee, and shamefully the priests allowed themselves to be used.

The Bishops didn't want our Church to share books with the Ukrainians (Ruthenian Recension), or with Johnstown, or with other Orthodox, or our Church in Europe, or with anyone else. They wanted to be different than everyone else, so that they would be making our Church into a new Recension, a new way of celebrating. They wanted a new branch, carving out for themselves a new tradition in the world of Byzantine Liturgy. They wanted an independent identity for the Ruthenian Church, and since it didn't have one (apart from fading ethnicity), the Bishops arrogantly decided it needed to be invented. Those who authorized the new books, manipulated the Committee, and wanted to enshrine the animosity of past generations in the books of future generations, so that their bitterness and vengefulness and small mindedness would outlive them. They used the Committee, and the Committee was so obsessed with their ideas and this golden opportunity, that they were blinded to how they were being used. Such a mentality by those in authority makes victims of one's own Church, and is too sad to contemplate. Perhaps our people are so used to being victimized, that they sometimes confuse it with 'obedience', but a victim is a victim. I hope some moderator on this forum, or some objective judge will call me out, and reject 'the cynical interpretation' as too cynical and say I am unfair and uncharitable and disrespectful to suggest it. Maybe I'll be banned again. I hope this explanation is not true, but I'm afraid it might be.

The Committee is discredited, their work is discredited, and the green books are discredited and doomed to rest unused in the pews, a terrible waste of time, effort and money.

Two possible answers to a reasonable question. Both answers unreasonable and depressing, and one worse than the other. Please, tell me I'm wrong.

Nick

At my parish there is active, maybe overactive participation in the liturgy, with the RDL. I would also like to note, that anytime there is a change to the wording and/or structure of the liturgy participation drops for some time. The Maronite Church suffered some when changes to the Qurbono were instituted. We must remember that if it is solely the words and chanting that are forcing one to limit their participation, previous participation would probably not be considered "active," but rather "passive-active" where people are singing the words, but not engaging the words and more importantly the Eucharist.

My points have all been shown to be valid. Archbishop Basil made a political statement with the Liturgy. He created a "Novus Ordo" Liturgy that is on purpose different from the Byzantine Liturgy. He rejected the Vatican directives.

But what can we do about it? The bishops won't listen to complaints. They don't care if everyone leaves. Bishop Kudrick knows lots of people have left. He does not care a bit. If he did he'd answer letters and let us have our Liturgy and our music.

I ask again. What can be done to fix the problem?

I would venture to say that those who are most vocal about the changes in the liturgy are the minority. People will leave the Church for one reason or another, as sad as it is; people will leave because of word changes, some will leave because the Priest will not agree to celebrate the Mystery of Crowning, others will leave because Evangelical churches are more fun. I think those who disagree and stay and disagree with some form of charity are who we should be talking about.

Dear Erie Byz,

I'm glad your parish is not having trouble adopting the RDL. I think what we're dealing with here is location, location, location.

I grew up with my home parish in another Eparchy. In 1995, my home parish was still saying Stations of the Cross during Lent, and my home pastor (may God rest his soul) told me that when I visited with my one-year old he would not give her communion, even though she had received the Holy Mysteries through the Parma Eparchy.

When I moved to the Cleveland area I finally knew my church like it was meant to be known. Icon screens graced the churches, not communion rails and Stations of the Cross as I had been used to. I could have left because it was different, or I could educate myself on the true traditions of the Byzantine Church.

I asked my pastor lots of questions. He gave me lots of answers, and lots of history. He told me the reason the Parma Eparchy was so "Orthodox" was because all of the truly "Eastern" priests were shipped out of Pittsburgh by an un-named Bishop who was Latinized.

We are truly dealing with apples and oranges. My experience East of Cleveland was very Latinized. In fact it was so bad, my husband refers to it as the Roman-Byzantine Church.

All we want is what is rightfully ours, the Restored Divine Liturgy -- not some fabricated anomaly. Whether we disagree with charity or not, we're being ignored, and that's why people are frustrated.

I would say we need to keep writing to Rome. Byzantine Catholics have a right to the Byzantine Liturgy. The bishops have prohibited the Divine Liturgy that Rome told them to celebrate. If we keep writing and never let up eventually the bishops will do what is right. We are in the right. The bishops are in the wrong. Keep writing.

My experience with the green book is that the green book gets put down because our head cantor, devoted and die-hard, is musically illiterate, and has trouble remembering the new music. Therefore, what he leads, what he uses, is mostly based off the 1965 recordings, with some wiggle room due to the process of both memory and fitting to current texts. He does a fine job, within that constraint of using the old music.

The people put the books down because they do not match, they have way too much page flipping, and because they are heavy and awkward. But, when I have done what is in the books in his absences, the people pick up their books, and follow along. Many in our parish are musically literate.

My old blue book is preferable due to weight; many at St. Nick's wish for a lightweight, text-only people's liturgikon. The only people I've heard complain of the new texts (as opposed to the book itself) have been Latin Traditionalist refugees, and they complained about the lack of Slavonic in use, too, in the days of the blue book. I extracted the text from the PDF of the RDL, and made a booklet with just the text (and the 8 tones' texts) for my daughter. Many have asked me for a copy.

I've seen online a lot of varied complaints; I've not heard those complaints at St. Nick's. I've heard only complaints about the music in the book not matching what is done, and most would prefer either solution: (1) sing what is written or (2) do not annotate the book with written music.

I'm always amazed when I read things like this. I had a completely different experience of Byzantine Catholicism growing up, in the early 1970s. Maybe because we were so far from the "Old Country" (Pennsylvania!) out here in California. I had only been to one Byzantine church until fairly recently. We had an iconostasis. We had infant communion. We had pews, but they were removed from the church from Easter to Pentecost. I am grateful that I didn't have the trauma of change and that we always had many things as they were supposed to be.

Still, I have the trauma of the RDL. I think the cantor and I are the only ones upset by it, though. My parents certainly don't get my ranting.

Elizabeth

Can I add your voice to the many who have asked you for a copy? I've been planning to do this for months for my kids. My 7 year old loves to follow along, but gets so lost following the book. I would love to not have to reinvent the wheel.

Elizabeth

Very well said, Father Deacon AJK. Your posts here are a delight. Sadly, the bishops are not interested in doing what is right seem intent to continue their attack on the Liturgy and the people. They seem intent on presiding over the death of the Church. They tell people that if they do not like the RDL they can leave and then they can close the parish and move the priest to another parish that needs a priest.

I have not as yet given any copies out, since the text is copyrighted to the Metropolitan Church. PM me.

I already tried. It says you're over your limit.