Is there any hope that the revised DL with eventually (if not immediatly) be supressed any time soon? Do individual BC parishes have the right to still use the old DL (either under indult or by personal choice)?

It seeems a real shame that just when the BC is goign through enough trouble with declining membership and church closings, this stuff has to come along and cause so much friction with loyal parishioners.

Also, do all BC churches have to use this liturgy, even non Ruthenian ones (like the Italo-Greek parishes on staten Island and Las vegas)?

First of all, the large majority of "Byzantine Catholic" parishes in the USA have no connection with the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

If you're looking for an opinion, I would say that in view of the precedent established by Summorum Pontificum, nobody has successfully abrogated the normal Divine Liturgy, nor is anyone likely to do so.

The most recent development is the appointment of a new Secretary of the Oriental Congregation - he both speaks and reads English, so is likelier to pay attention to protests over this liturgical atrocity.

Fr. Serge

Well, how many Byzantine parishes have outright rejected the RDL? Are there some ?Eparchs who are more leniant over this then others?

Within the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Church (including the Eparchies of Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys), the only approved english text for the Divine Liturgy is the green book (and the corresponding priest's books).

If pastors are using the Slavonic (still an option) they are permitted the last approved Slavonic texts (which were used for the Blue) sans the filioque.

The other Byzantine Rite Catholics in the US use their own translations as approved by their synods.

I know some Parma priests who are slowly putting the liturgy back the way it should be. And my pastor tells me that in Pittsburgh about 25-30% of the parishes never started the RDL. There is a question whether the bishops have the right to prohibit the full liturgy. The RDL is pretty awful and everyone knows it. It will not last much longer. Bishop John is pretty strange when he talks about it. He says it should be taken from the official books at the same time he admits its awful. We are ready to put the old books back. The pope certainly never approved this. And it looks like Bishop Pataki bought the approval from the Congregation. I see here that even Father Taft never endorsed it and has openly rejected it.

Are you saying we should write more letters? I am willing. And I know several others who are frustrated enough with the RDL to write.

Anyone? Should we keep writing? Or is it a lost cause?

Certainly - write lots of letters. It's important that the folks in Rome don't get the impression that we've all gone away!

Fr. Serge

I think Rome doesn't care about us. They don't respond to letters.

They may not respond but they do hear you. When the noise gets loud enough they will respond if the Bishops support you it won't take as long. If not it could be forty years.

Within the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Church (including the Eparchies of Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys), the only approved english text for the Divine Liturgy is the green book (and the corresponding priest's books).

That is true--but it is also irrelevant. Quite a number of parishes never adopted the Teal Terror, quite a few that did have gone back to the 1965 Book, while yet others have opted to use the new text with the old music. The attitude of the different hierarchs varies from indifference to tacit consent--the voice of the collection box speaks loudly indeed. Only in Passaic was there near universal adoption of the RDL, due to Bishop Andrew's particular management style (Stalinism lite). Under Bishop William (who, when he celebrates, seems blithely unaware of the text and rubrics he is supposed to be using" the degree of pushback against the new liturgy is increasing. My guess is in a couple of years it will be just one of several different forms being used in the Metropolia, and that we will probably not see widespread implementation of a reformed Basil or Presanctified, let alone Vespers and Orthros.

I've been reading this forum for a long time but finally registered.

I don't understand the new liturgy. I thought the Vatican was telling us to restore our liturgy and our traditions?

So why did the bishops abandon them and do a rewrite on the liturgy? It's sort of like PC-Episcopalian-Lite.

I asked Bishop William if there was any chance of going back to the old liturgy. He looked at me as if I was an idiot and walked away. So I think there is probably no hope when the bishops hate the liturgy and the people.

Things in Passaic are never simple.

Parma's got to be worse. Priests can take any latinism they want. Rosaries. Stations of the Cross. Divine Mercy. They can do pretty much anything except the full and real Liturgy. The only think a priest can get in trouble for is if he takes a forbidden prayer that is found in the form of a litany.

They will continue to reform until all the people are gone.

Then they will insult the people about how stupid they were.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if what you are doing drives people away you should stop doing it! Duh!

That the bishops disagree with your opinion does not mean they hate the liturgy or the people. But comments like the above are certainly not going to endear you or your cause to them.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

They treat people like dog droppings. They manufacture a liturgy that chases people out the door. At the very least it certainly means that they do not care about the liturgy or the people.

It's really sad. And scandalous. The bishops hurt us big time. And we are suppose forgive them and be obedient and live with the ongoing hurt?

I thought they were the ones who were supposed to be the icons of Christ?

Yes. Christ said to forgive 7x70 and to take up your cross and follow him.


Your supposed to be an icon of Christ too.

I don't think Christ thought the Apostles were supposed to be a cross to the people. In any case, I can forgive the Their Graces, but I cannot overlook the evil that they did--nor, for that matter, can I remain silent and thus become complicit in that evil. There must be metanoia, the bishops must acknowledge their shortcomings.



I think I want to be the one with the knotted cords, cleansing the Temple.

My favorite quote from some Chancery drone: "The bishop doesn't speak to ordinary people".

And unfortunatelly it is soooooo true!

I've had no problem with Eparchs George, William, nor Gerald; all three of their excellencies said the black, did the red, and were approachable after liturgy... at least when they came to Alaska. They listened, talked, and made it clear the knew the people had a right to approach the bishop on issues.

Stuart: I'd say it's time to present that chancery drone with a copy of the CCEO canon 15

Since his accession to the most eminent throne of Passaic, Bishop William has habitually celebrated in what can best be called an idiosyncratic fashion; pastorally, he has not demonstrated much in the way of leadership, though he has taken some tentative steps to reverse the damage inflicted by his predecessor (who, though, for some reason, he kept on as syncellus, which sent mixed messages at best). His Grace has continued the policy of ignoring ordinary people, as though the Church still consisted of priests, cantors and illiterate peasants.

From all accounts, Bishop George was a most excellent pastor who took his liturgical and pastoral duties seriously; peculiarly for a Ruthenian bishop, he actually understood the importance of a strong monastic witness and supported the establishment and growth of Holy Resurrection Monastery. His successor, Bishop William, was openly hostile to the monks, actually placing them under interdict. Their departure for the Romanian Exarchate was largely his doing, and did immense damage to the Ruthenian Church.

I have not had the opportunity of experiencing Bishop Gerald, but nothing I saw of him as a priest inspired me with optimism.

As someone on the outside of this argument, I am wondering what are the are the supposed benefits for these changes?

Political correctness is the first benefit.

Music no one likes or can sing is the second benefit.

Driving away the faithful if the third benefit.

At least with the old liturgy we knew the words and could actually sing the music.

I truely hope this is not the first step in taking away your customs and traditions. I have seen too much of this in my own church and really hate to see tradition and reverence destroyed in the name of progress. I wonder if perhaps this is the first step in trying to make your rite more Roman. I really hope this is not the case.

There is always hope, and hope is one of the Christian virtues. That said, I suggest a Ukrainian parish, a Romanian parish, a Melkite parish, or a Russian parish (yes, there are a few Russian Greek-Catholic parishes in the USA), all of which are untouched by the RDL.

Fr. Serge

The thing that I find unfortunate is when something is changed for the worse eventually the people that remember the way something used to be die out and then the only thing remembered is the new practice. As an example I am 43 years old and going through life I fell away from the church after highschool through my college years. Upon my return I found a much different Roman Catholic church than I left. I grew up in a parish that would be considered very traditional by todays standards and Im am continually dismayed by what I encounter at mass sometimes. From my perspective it seems like its a process to make religion more user friendly for the people but at what cost?

The Ukrainian Church in my area also uses inclusive language. Hopefully that will be changing, but in the interim there is nowhere else to attend in my area, so I suffer with the RDL. Of course, there are always the Orthodox. The problem there is the breaking of communion with the rest of the family. I have to wonder why union with Rome equates to poor liturgical practices (at least in this area)?

And still, where can be found the complete service books acording to the RDL ? And what was the general impact of RDL? As far as I am concerned I only read Saint John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy in the RDL form and I was... astonished of what one could find there...

Only Chrysostom has received approval from the Holy See, which apparently has been sitting on Basil, the Presanctified, Vespers and Orthros (and long may they sit!). If "revised" versions of those services are being celebrated, the texts are either drafts or unofficial variants.

From the inception of the promulgation of RDL, we were also given Basil liturgicons. While the Chrysostom books have a dark green cover, the Basil ones are tan. As far as I know, the Basil Liturgy version of RDL has the same level of approval as Chrysostom. I hesitate to speak more authoritatively because I am at work, and don't have access to my books. I can only imagine what can be done to the other services. The Basilian texts of the Divine Office are already objectionable on many fronts. May God spare us!

Dn. Robert

I get the point. Where are the official texts published? And if they can be found somewhere in the US, Church Bookstore or something similar. In any case, I realize that something must be done in order to return to an older or better translation of the Liturgy.

Complete? No.

The DL of Sts. John and Basil?
http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/2007%20Liturgy%20-%20Music.htm

The IELC and MCI are not done with the full panopoly of texts.

What the MCI has done is at
http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/Publications.html

We've got Matins, Vespers, and DL's of St John and St Basil, and soon, presanctified, but not consolidated. Reader services don't have books out, and there is consideration of deaconal forms for hours and Typica with Communion.

What must be so frustrating is that there are so many translations of the DL out there. It isn't as though this is the first attempt to translate from either Greek or Slavonic. The whole thing about approval seems to be a smoke screen to me. If the Ukrainians have an approved translation and the Melkites have one and the Romanians have one, what's to prevent the BCC from just shifting over to one of these? Of course, there is the issue of who controls . . ., control being the operative word.

BOB

Here is a link to one of our parishes which has posted PDF copies of our liturgicons (amongst other things).

Dn. Robert

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/2007%20Liturgy%20-%20Music.htm

Thank you! I have already read those texts. I was wondering when this idea of a new "revised" Liturgy came in the mind of your bishops? There were any particular aspects that asked for this new version? Pastoral reasons?

And this is a problem. . .why? As the ICEL translation of the Missale Romano (and the NAB) and the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission's "translation" of the Ruthenian recension show, the problem with one "authorized" translation is you are stuck with it for good or ill (usually ill). With multiple translations competing, one can compare them against each other, take what is good from each, discard what is faulty. Let a thousand translations bloom--and let them be properly peer-reviewed (the peer review process of the RDL being just about as rigorous as that applied to global warming models).

The complete, authorized Slavonic recension was compiled in the 1940s by the Oriental Congregation at the behest of the "Ruthenian" (i.e., Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn) bishops because neither was willing to rely on the other to do it. The 1942 recension, while not perfect (it is full of typos and retains some latinizations since discarded) was widely considered a model of liturgical scholarship.

Unfortunately, none of the Ruthenian bishops in the United States accepted what they had asked Rome to provide, as a result of which the entire liturgicon has never been translated into English, let alone celebrated in English. The RDL originated as a mandate to (finally) provide a full and accurate translation of the Slavonic texts. It does not take either a rocket scientist or a liturgical scholar to see that the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission did something entirely different--they created a new "American" liturgy and then made it mandatory on all.

Think of it as "Elkoism with a human face". But, under the silk glove remains the iron fist.

Hegumen Nicholas was not without blame in this. He overstepped his bounds trying to erect a women's monastery, a power which canon law does not grant him. It went downhill from there.

It was much deeper than that. There seemed to be episcopal resentment against the monastery from its inception (with the exception of Bishop George). Furthermore, Hegumen Nicholas was quite forthright in his insistence upon restoring the fullness of the liturgical life of the Metropolitan Church, including both regular celebration of the Divine Praises and the Divine Liturgy in its completeness. His address at Orientale Lumen was a clarion call, and from that time onward, the knives were out. Once Bishop George retired, it was only a matter of time. The monks of Holy Resurrection represent everything our bishops loathe--including an alternative source of spiritual authority within the Church.

Actually, "it" is much deeper than what you post, and I would not classify "it" as episcopal resentment of the monastic witness. "It" began during the later years of Bishop George's episcopacy, developed during the vacancy and the early years of Bishop William's episcopacy, and culminated with HRM's transfer to Bishop John-Michael's jurisdiction. No Eparch or Administrator prevented Fr Abbott Nicholas to celebrate the liturgical offices in their fullness. That these liturgical offices are being celebrated with various degrees of regularity among the parishes of the Eparchy of Van Nuys points to the reality that not everyone of our faithful lives within the clarion call for vespers, matins, or the hours. If the knives were out (and they were not), it was not over the celebration of the liturgical services.

For practicality, I for one would rather see an urban monastic presence.

Stuart:

My point about so many translations was that the Powers-th-Be seem to think they have to reinvent the wheel over and over. Why not start with something already extant and simply revise or refine the existing language? Or better yet, why not simply adopt someone else's translation and use it? Or even better allow parishes to choose formt he existing ones?

BOB

My sentiments exactly. But the Powers-That-Be prefer to control everything themselves, something which was not even possible until the invention of the printing press. Before that time, no two Liturgicons were alike.

When we have monks coming out our ears, we can think about it. In the meanwhile, a rural presence on both coasts is badly needed.