I hesitate to post this, inasmuch as some postings on this Forum seem to generate more heat than light, but I am struck by the absence of posts on any topic on this forum since September 9. If this means that all that can be said has been said, so be it (although I find that hard to understand). If it means that members have come to see the merits of viewpoints other than their own and are content to let things rest a bit, that seems a happy development. If it means that members find further dialog on this contentious theme no longer worthwhile, I am sorry that is so. If there is some other reason (other than "poster fatigue"), I would be interested in knowing what it is.

The discussions posted here would seem to be entirely academic since the Bishops have made their decision regarding the RDL and are obviously not going to review or revise it based upon the discussions here or via any other forum.
Unfotunately, this is the way the BCC has operated since its establishment.
Essentially "poster fatigue" would best describe the drop in postings.

Actually, though there is not much left to say (and no, there are NOT two sides to this issue), it does not mean there is no progress towards repeal of the unspeakable atrocity inflicted upon the Ruthenian Catholic Church by its own overseers. Rather, the matter has moved off of the internet and into the parishes, where priests have, without much fuss or bother, decided to do what they must to save their churches from implosion. Thus, a number have returned to the old red book (assuming they ever adopted the Teal Terror in the first place), while others have returned to the old familiar music with a modified text. The bishops themselves, in their own cathedrals, do not seem to be adhering to the rubrics or the texts that they themselves promulgated and made the exclusive liturgy of their Church.

Reality intrudes upon the fantasy in which the Intereparchial Liturgical Committee was living. Thus, we have not seen promulgation of Basil, nor of the Presanctified, nor any progress towards formal issuance of the Archieretikon, nor of new texts for Orthros and Vespers (though the point of doing so in a Ruthenian context is puzzling). Rome has upbraided the Metropolia for its efforts, and made it clear that a new direction is required.

I do not expect the Teal Terror will ever be repealed. Our bishops do not admit to errors, nor do they ever explain anything. And, besides, they laid out good money for those books--but do not expect a second printing. Instead, one can expect a gradual fragmentation of liturgical usage within the Metropolia as each bishop goes his own way with regard to policy, and each priest does what he must to hold his congregation together.

In a few years, only a minority of parishes will even be attempting to use the RDL, and we will have returned to status quo ante--but with many fewer active members of the Church.

Another self-inflicted wound as the Ruthenian Church dies the death of a thousand cuts.

It looks like the BC faithful have just decided to ignore the mistake the bishops made, and have gone back to doing things the way they were before the RDL mistake. Better just to keep quiet and do what is right.

By the way, I drove past the local BC Church this morning, and I distinctly heard Slavonic singing.

Alexandr

Some parishes are moving into the teal book, comfortably, and without fuss.

There are multiple positions. In any case, the proper route of complaint is to your bishop. Should a bishop be ordained and enthroned who objects to it, he can appeal to the synod, and then on to the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy and/or the Sacred Congregation of the Eastern Churches. And they can order changes, or acceptance.

But the appropriate congregations in question do not take complaints from non-clerics under normal circumstances.

Not necessary. The bishop is liturgicarch of his diocese, so he can pretty much do what he wants within certain limits. So, if a bishop came along who said "I'm not going to use this green abomination", that would be the end of it in his eparchy. No appeal to anywhere is necessary. He just has to have the gumption to stare down the other three bishops (and, of course, the Bishop Emeritus of Passaic, which is the crux of the matter).

And where would one find such a bishop? Not in America certainly.

I am curious how different the RDL is from the ACROD liturgy. Does someone know where an online version of the ACROD liturgy might be found? Failing that does anyone know how much and from where I can buy the text?

I listened to some bits from the ACROD website and, while the melody sounded very similar to what I was used to, the words were very very different.

Well, to be blunt, I never knew the canons against ordaining a eunuch had been repealed.

Hope this works:

Divine Liturgy as celebrated in ACROD

Text of Divine Liturgy:
http://beta.acrod.org/prayercorner/textsresources/divineliturgy

The Liturgicon can be bought here:
http://www.orthodoxgoods.com/libo.html

Also, recordings of ACROD Divine Liturgy can be watched here.

I have a copy of the "Johnstown Liturgicon". It is official but not used everywhere (or even in most places). As I have noted, Metropolitan Nicholas uses the 1964 Ruthenian edition on his holy table (with some mark-ups), as do many of his clergy. Certainly there is no prohibition against the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as there is among the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics in the Pittsburgh Metropolia.


Most Johnstown parishes take the Divine Liturgy more-or-less in the way it was in the Levlukic Pew Book. The online version Fr. Deacon Lance linked is close, but lacks decent rubrics (but rubrics don't always make sense on a website).

Yes, the melodies are similar. There is a cross between setting them closer to "as they were sung in Slavonic" and "as they are given in Boksaj". For the most part the settings they use favor retaining the Slavonic melody more literally than worrying about providing good accents of the English text. In a lot of cases they seem to have taken the draft English settings from the late 1950s and early 1960s (before Pittsburgh came out with official settings for the fixed texts) and ran with them.

Most people I have experimented with tell me that one listens to our 1965 settings in English being sung they can easily understand the words. Not so with the Johnstown settings or the RDL / Thompson settings.

But back to the original post.


Different reasons for different people. But some of us are working in the background. I have an ongoing project to update the 1964 Chrysostom translation to make it more literally correct when compared to the official Slavonic editions of the Divine Liturgy (with Basil and the other books to follow). It's had a good deal of interest and is progressing nicely to the final review stages. But, frankly, discussions of how a term should be correctly translated don't generate a lot of interest. Most aren't interested in such details - they just want the final product!

Steve might be correct in that the bishops are probably not going to review or revise it based upon the discussions here or via any other forum. But I'm not sure that is it. And I have had many tell me that the bishops themselves don't follow the RDL they promulgated (slipping into the old words or rubrics, or inventing entirely new things). And we see some parishes throwing the green books in the closet and making their own 'text only' pew books because they find music is so difficult and unsingable.

Further, A number of priests, cantors and laymen speak of a great lethargy in the Ruthenian Church since the implementation of the RDL. The bishops hurt a lot of people. Sometimes one recovers. Sometimes one does not. Some priests have described the implementation and nastiness of the bishops on the topic as the equivalent of being on pilgrimage, and while walking down the road having the bishop attack you with a 2x4 and walking away. And then being in that stage where you sit there hurting and trying to catch your breath. Even when you are able to stand again you are not ready to respond or, sometimes, even speak.

But there are appeals still before Rome. And Rome is sometimes slower then a snail. I am still confident that Rome will at some point openly direct the bishops to fix the issues and to promulgate a full and accurate translation. So there is still lots of work to be done, and all of it not on the internet.

I watched one of the ACROD sunday D/L on their website recently, broadcast from The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Johnstown, PA. Some observations:

There were no little litanies between the antiphons.
There was no third antiphon.
There were no litanies of the faithful or of the catechumens.
The creed was read and not sung.
The anaphora was read aloud. The priest had a mic and could very clearly be heard, even over the choir singing when they were singing.

I just want to take a moment to share my recent experience regarding the RDL. We have a new priest in our parish, newly arrived from Slovakia. He strongly dislikes the RDL, as does every priest I know. He also finds the "Teal Terror" to be quite useless. He is in the process of developing a small, text-only book for use in our parish, as so many other parishes seem to have done. We were going through some old books in his office the other day. The cantor came across a book and said "We could just use this." Father looked at it and shook his head, saying "its the wrong translation." I said, hopefully, "We could use it anyway." Father said "Yes, but then we'd have to start our own church. There is great Grace in obedience and the Bishops will have to answer to God for their own actions, we for ours."

Now, I know that he dislikes the RDL and I know that he is going through the appropriate channels to have his dislike noted. I just really appreciated his humble obedience and the example of his leadership in this way, even while I wish he would just do it the old way.

Elizabeth