www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy WHY THE SILENCE?

Stuart:

Thanks so much for this. At last a theological and linguistic linking to show the problems of social and linguistic engineering at a very profound level. What many of us have taken as intuition based on less education in these areas is now brought to new levels by a man trained in both areas and who has brought his lights to bear on this problem of translations.

Thanks again.

BOB

Fr. Petras' reasons for the relevant changes seem to me to be exactly the kind of thing condemned as heretical by Pius X.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

See errors # 58, 59, 62, and 63 in the link above.

The administrator is correct to say, however, that in any case Rome has spoken and said that it is theologically grave to remove "men" from the Creed. It is wrong, should never have been done, and ought to be corrected immediately. Since Rome has spoken and since the corrections have not been made, what should we then think?

We have come to a very low state when a word can be removed in the Symbol of Faith (i.e.,that by which we recognize each other and profess a common belief) contrary to Rome's direction and yet we are to judge not according to the objective truth (that a word has been removed from the Creed), but the good intentions of the ones who have authorized and argued for the deletion.

"Theologically grave" is merely a polite euphemism for heretical. Rome's aversion to schism is so great that it bends over backwards to avoid giving the impression that such a thing as heresy could exist within its ranks, because to do so would require, well, some sort of "grave" response. The problem with being a sovereign state is you have to have a diplomatic corps. And diplomats are in the business of obscuring, not revealing, unpleasant truths.

I do not consider the framers of the RDL a sufficient authority to have authorized the removal of such a key word from our creed. So for my part, I still say "For us men, and for our salvation..." As I'm not the loudest of singers (for which my fellow parishioners are eternally grateful) no one else hears me.

The authority to change a liturgy for a Church Sui Iuris is that Church's synod. The framers may not have been the synod, but the synod universally approved their work.

However, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church does not have a synod, merely a pathetic "Council of Hierarchs", which, under the canons of the CCEO, has far less authority than a synod, and which is severely circumscribed in what it can do without the approval of the Holy See. One of the things it cannot do is substantially alter the liturgical recension authorized by the Holy See. The 1942 Slavonic liturgy is still normative for all the Ruthenian Churches, both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn.

So what is going on here? How did they get this RDL approved?

The fix was in.

Politically astute bishops in favor of the RDL lobbied shamelessly in the Oriental Congregation. The proper buttons were pushed, and, it is reputed by those in the know, that gifts were given to the proper people, resulting in a cursory review of the translation. Father Taft, given the thankless task, insists he was told not to critique the effort but only to search for overt heresy (whatever that may be). Father Taft has since issued a scathing rebuke to changes in the RDL that were, supposedly, done under the influence of his writings (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the hands of third rate academic hacks mindlessly mimicking their intellectual superiors). The result is what you see.

Rome is now in the delicate position of having to coerce the Council of Hierarchs to recall the RDL, without being seen as "bullying" a sui juris Church. After all, Rome can hardly tell the Orthodox that communion does not mean submission, if it is delivering marching orders to the Eastern Catholic bishops. So, the behind-the-scenes wheedling will continue, while the situation in the Metropolia continues to deteriorate. It is now a race to see whether the necessary changes will be made before the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church reaches the point of no return. Some think it is already too late. And, for those who think a Church cannot disappear, I call your attention to the fate of the Great Church of Africa, that gave us Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo. It vanished without a trace in the wake of the Muslim conquest. Don't think it takes an external oppressor to wreak that kind of havoc--the Church is quite capable of doing it to itself.

Such accusations beg for substantiation. Until then, they are strictly opinion and hearsay.

People always say that, particularly when those in power deliberately seek to operate behind closed doors. Transparency has never been a hallmark of the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church, but to believe that it is possible to keep secrets in such a small community is silly. Those who don't know, don't know because they do not want to know.

But, do keep whistling past the graveyard.

When confronted by the likelihood of a dark and difficult future for our Ruthenian Church, Bishops Romzha, Gojdic and Hopko responded with faith, humility, love and fidelity. Seems to me they have left us an example to imitate.
I can't control the decisions of our Bishops, nor those of the Holy See, but I am able to control my reactions to them.
It'd probably be better for me to reject pessimism and choose optimism, charity, kindness and prayer. It may indeed be "too late" for some things in our Ruthenian Church but it's never "too late" to pray, to bear witness and to entrust our future serenely to the loving providence of the Lord.

It's easier when the enemy is external, and only threatens your physical existence. It's much, much harder when the enemy is within, and threatens you with spiritual annihilation.

Well, yes - what you say savors of the "truthy".
I perceive my potential "spiritual annihilation" to be the result of MY negative attitudes and choices. I ain't gonna give no Bishops - nor no one else - the power to destroy me spiritually.
Someone went to confession and confessed the sin of viciously criticizing her pastor behind his back. The confessor told her, "If you aren't praying and fasting on his behalf, you're part of the problem".

John Chrysostom disagreed. He wrote "I fear few bishops will be saved", because while a layman has only his own soul to consider, the bishop will be called to account for all the souls entrusted to his care. What then will be the fate of bishops whose decisions drove people out of their Church, many of them falling away altogether? What fate for bishops who managed to oversee the dissolution of their parishes and the dilution of the Tradition they were entrusted to pass on, "adding nothing, deleting nothing, changing nothing"? It is bad enough when ecclesiacide is committed by secular forces, worse when it is committed by one Church against another, but worst of all when the leaders of a Church cause it to commit suicide.

I would never viciously criticize anyone. . . behind his back.

By the way, when Paul upbraided Peter to his face for sitting with the Circumcizers in Antioch, was he part of the problem, too?