Christ is Born! I have a question I hope someone may answer. I am Eastern Orthodox and interested in Eastern Catholic Church. I have read here about revisions in the Holy Liturgy of the Greek Catholic Church and I am curious what these changes are. I have attended Greek Catholic liturgy here in the Czech Republic before as well as in Austria just this past Summer and I could not notice any real difference between their liturgy and ours. Are these changes only in America? What do these changes entail? I find it sad if bishops are trying to change your liturgy as they did in the 1960s in the Latin rite. Maybe I am mistaken and these changes only concern the translation from Church Slovanik to English or do they concern the actual rite itself? Maybe someone could explain this to me. I always feel that despite the papacy we Orthodox and Greek Catholics are very connected especially because of our common Liturgy. Thank you for any replies. Christos se Narodi! Oslavujete HO!

Cyril,

Welcome to the forum. I'll leave it to others to explain the changes or point you to threads that describe them, but the short answer to your question is 'yes, it only relates to the United States - and, particularly, to the Byzantine (Ruthenian Greek-Catholic) Metropolia of Pittsburgh and its dependent eparchies.'

Many years,

Neil

New musical settings with more melodic variation (especially more use of melismas) than Msgr. Levkulic's 1965 collection, which seems the basis for the tones I've heard in parishes in parishes across the country before it came out.

Blends melodic approaches of at least 4 disparate regional variations.

The english translation is controversial.

The filioque is removed (as it should be).

The ektenie are shortened.

No references to the curtain in the rubrics.

The people's book has the music notated. This makes it big, heavy, and mildly expensive. It also has 2-5 options for many of the melodies.

To be a little less obscure:

1. All Little Litanies are suppressed.

2. All "Grant it" petitions are suppressed.

3. Antiphon verses are suppressed.

4. Tendentious translation relying heavily on the 1950 Greek typical edition, rather than the 1942 Slavonic Liturgicon. "Horizontally inclusive language" is used to bad effect. Some translations are barely paraphrases, others are just wrong.

5. Filioque is suppressed, but then it already had been.

6. Third antiphon is made mandatory (though it was already in the 1964 book).

7. Most of the propers (the Troparia, Kontakia and Irmoi) especially of the feasts, have been rewritten, some of them in a highly unprofessional manner.

8. Rubrics have been modified in a manner that often does not coincide either with the Sluzebnik or with the Ordo Celebrationis.

9. All prayers of the priest are to be said aloud, though this makes no distinction between the prayers the priest says on behalf of himself, those he says on behalf of the people, and those in which he leads the people; rubrics directing certain prayers to be said quietly are ignored.

10. Music is mandated, mainly arranged from Boksaj, in a pretty poor manner that ignores the cadences of normal English speech; also ignores Prostopinje as actually sung in the Carpatho-Rusyn homeland in favor of an obsolescent and largely academic collation of chants from one diocese at one point in time. The result is largely unknown to the people, and generally unsingable.

11. Whole exercise may be academic, as many parishes across the country have either returned to the 1965 text, or use the current text with the familiar Levkulic music, or never adopted the RDL at all. Top-down exercises tend to fall apart in that manner.

At our parish the "grant it" petitions are alive and well. However, much to my annoyance, they seem to be optional at the priest's discretion. One of our former pastors was accustomed to omitting them. I told him I missed them and his response was that I could go to the local Ukrainian parish if I liked them so much.
This is an example of many things priests ought not to say.

Some corrections to Stuart's post

2. The "Grant it O Lord" petitions before the Our Father are not suppressed, they are optional.

9. Not all the priest's prayers are said aloud. Those that are:

The Prayer of the First Antiphon
The Prayer of Preparation for the Anaphora (Access to the Altar)
The Anaphora
The Prayer of the Dyptychs
The Prayer of the Litany of Petition
The Prayer of the Bowing of the Heads
The Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion

Rubrics do direct that other prayers be said silently.

Father Serge Keleher wrote a very good review of the Revised Divine Liturgy: "Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" in 2006 publsihed by Stauropegion Press, P.O. Box 11096, Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998. It's also available online here: http://www.byzcath.org/etc/Keleher-Studies-Byz-Liturgy-1.pdf

StuartK is correct in his summary.

Deacon Lance is not entirely correct. The litany before the Our Father is condensed (like the Catechumen Litany), and what is left is prohibited in Passaic. Bishop Pataki made his hatred for the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy clear when he said that most parishes did not take that litany and that "we are not going backward."

Among the worst changes are the neutered and stilted language and the atrocious music.

Next up: the Ruined Revised Presanctified. It's just as bad as the RDL. The bishops have said that the hatred for the RDL will quiet down once all the services are ruined. They are incredibly wrong. Deacon Lance does not know how good he has it to be in a parish that does the 1964. The liturgy in his parish - even though severely abbreviated - is far better than any parish with the RDL. But anyone that offers the scholarship to show how bad the RDL is is personally attacked, so everyone keeps quiet.

Unlike the Litany of Catechumens where all the petitions are condensed into one petition, in the Litany before the Our Father only the second and third petitions are joined. As to prohibition, Bishop Andrew is retired and the petitions are in the book, a priest/deacon need only chant them.

Things in Passaic are never that simple.

Thank you for the replies. I suppose the reason I have not picked up on changes in Greek Catholic liturgy is because the only such liturgies I have attended in the past decade have been in Central Europe. As far as I can tell the Ukranian Greek Catholics here have kept their liturgy more or less the same. Thanks again for responding. I have enjoyed to website very much. Slava Isusu Kristu!

Even in Eastern Europe, the Liturgy varies considerably from eparchy to eparchy, and even parish to parish. Nobody makes much of an effort at uniformity. My experience with the Orthodox is similar: you can get very different liturgical experiences at churches of the same jurisdiction separated by a couple of blocks or from one village to the next.

According to my pastor, the "grant it O Lord" petitions and the optional use of "dveri, dveri" at the Creed are still locally supressed in the Passaic Eparchy. I've been told not to use them.

Dn. Robert

If you did, would the world end? Are there stukachi in every pew waiting for your or your priest to slip up, so they can denounce you to the episcopal security service? Is there a GULAG for recalcitrant Passaic priests and deacons?

St John Climacus said:
If we wish to preserve unshaken faith in our superiors, we must write their good deeds indelibly in our hearts and preserve them in our memories so that, when the demons scatter distrust of them among us, we can repel them by what we have retained in our minds. The more faith blossoms in the heart, the more the body is eager to serve. To stumble on distrust is to fall, since "whatever does not spring from faith is sin" (Rom.1:23). When the thought strikes you to judge or condemn your superior, leap away as though from fornication. Give no trust, place, entry, or starting point to that snake. Say this to the viper; "Listen to me, deceiver, I have no right to pass judgment on my superior but he has the authority to be my judge. I do not judge him; he judges me."

To (the Fathers), blessed obedience is a confession of faith, without which no one subject to passions will see the Lord.

The relationship of pastor and deacon is based on trust; to destroy that trust through disobedience is to destroy a parish and possibly destroy two vocations and their souls.

The gulag which we are to fear is Pride, the desire to say "I am right; my pastor is wrong." In this year for priests this ought to be especially dominant in our mind.

Fr Deacon Paul

And yet, the history of the Church is replete with examples of deacons, priests, monastics and even laymen defying the hierarchs when the latter have been in the wrong. They are numbered among the saints, while their bishops are usually unmentioned except during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

In other words, you should do what is right, regardless of who tells you otherwise. There is no Nuremberg Defense before the awesome judgment seat.

My original purpose in posting this information was merely to point out that, in fact, priests and deacons in the Passaic Eparchy, do not have the freedom to take the above "bracketed" petitions and the bracketed "dveri, dveri" (prior to the Creed). I was attempting to correct a mis-statement of fact, not to comment on the wisdom of the restriction.

Dn. Robert

Did anybody every question these restrictions and others while the former bishop was engaging in wholesale destructio in ecclesia? It is the failure to speak out which is most distressing of all.

It is one thing to be obedient to authority.

It is something quite different to be silent when those in authority do things that are wrong. Staying silent in the face of what is wrong is not just a cop out it is immoral.

If obedience is the highest virtue, then why did then-Monsignor Andrew Pataki lead a presbyteral rebellion against the "reforms" of his bishop, Nicholas Elko (the New Iconoclast)? Perhaps Bishop Andrew's micromanagerial and near-paranoid style of "leadership" was from fear of having done to him what he had done himself?

In my own case, I have expressed my opinions on the RDL, which are virtually identical to those of the Moderator of this forum, to my pastor, my bishop, and on this forum (check my posts on the issue). You are accusing the wrong guy here.

Dn. Robert

Which sounds too much like the Staff Officer's Maxim: "An action passed is an action completed". But, if you felt strongly that the RDL was both wrong and deleterious to the health of the Church, do you not have an obligation to continue raising your objections until they are addressed, or, if they are not addressed, to resign your ministry?

You can say the same about the faithful...

Well, I voted with my feet. So have many others. Of course, our bishops characterize us as troublemakers and say "Good riddance!"

Soon they will have to deal with John Henry Cardinal Newman's observation to Cardinal Gibbons: "The laity, my lord, are those without whom the Church would appear silly".

Clerical disobedience is sinful on a level different from that of the laity, Stuart.

For them to openly disobey is sinful, tho' to make complaint to the bishops whilst obeying is far from sinful, and while quite a hard road, still what they are called to do.

They do not have the option of voting with their feet.

And yet we have disobedient clerics numbered among the saints, right from the beginning. St. Paul set the example, when he confronted Peter to his face and rebuked him for sitting with the circumcizers.



They can put aside their ministry, if they cannot exercise it with free will. They can asked to be released, in the same way that an officer unable to obey an unlawful order, or asked to execute a policy with which he strongly disagrees, can resign his commission.

Your example is incorrect. Paul didn't disobey Peter. If you re-read Galatians Chapter 2 you will see that Paul was confronting Peter's hypocrisy....sometimes Peter would eat with Gentiles and other times he refused...depending who was present. Disobedience was not at all the issue because St Peter himself said that the Gospel should be brought to the Gentiles.

With regard to the military, I was an enlisted man and, believe me, I didn't have the option to resign. The consequence was court martial.

But Maximos the Confessor disobeyed everybody. So did John of Damascus and Theodore Studites. I can pull up other examples.



If you believed strongly enough that the order was illegal or immoral, then you would have no choice but to take the court martial. Officers do get to resign their commissions, though, and as a deacon, consider yourself an officer.

I doubt the validity of a local supression. The whole purpose of the RDL was to have one uniform set of texts, music, and rubrics for the Metropolia. Indeed I believe the Commission did want to excise those petitions entirely but Rome required them to be left as an option. Even if Bishop Andrew declared them suppressed I would ask Bishop William if they are again permitted. Bishop Andrew also forbid deacons to wear cuffs, I served with a deacon who ignored that one. Is that particular supression still around?

I take the oath I took at ordination as unbreakable unless my bishop were to ask me to adhere to heresy or practice immorality. Since I do not believe the RDL to be either, even though I disagree with some of it, I cannot in good conscience refuse to serve. There are others who felt in good conscience they could not serve and left for the Ukrainians, Romanians, or Melkites. While I do not agree with it, I respect their right to do so.

You beat me to the punch. In my case, I think the RDL is a problem in several areas, but we do not have an invalid Liturgy. I have not abandoned the possibility that a "reform of the reform" may ultimately occur (hope it does not take 40 years to get to that point).

Dn. Robert

The RDL at least tends towards heresy with the use of inclusive language. It changes the mission of the Second Person of the Trinity from the redeemer of mankind to the redeemer of us. Us who? We (the faithful) shouldn't have to ask that question, as the liturgy used to tell us. One wonders what the next generation that is brought up on this watered down version of the atonement will believe? And what of this generation's faithful that are being scandalized by a PC liturgy? How many souls lost are too many?

It may not have been a heresy to say that Mary was the 'Christotokos,' as she was indeed the Mother of the Christ, but the Church condemned the term, favoring instead the term 'Theotokos,' because it more fully explained who the child in her womb was. Likewise it may not be a heresy to say 'loves us all,' 'who for us, and for our salvation,' etc., etc. but the Church (both the RC and EO) has likewise condemned this expressions because they do not paint the entire picture, and in fact can easily lead to heresy (limited atonement anyone)?

I don't like inclusive language but the RDL does not at "least tend to heresy". Please document where "loves us all" was condemned. Please reread the acts of Ephesus, the term Christotokos was not condemned. And it is an option in the new Chaldean Missal approved by Rome.

I've posted on this numerous times. The closest the Vatican comes to condemning a translation as heresy is to call it "theologically grave". They did so to a proposed version of the Creed that removed the word "men" in "who for us men and our salvation" and the Roman bishops understood and fixed the problem, while the Ruthenian bishops rejected the Vatican's ruling and - six years later - insisted on using improper and incorrect language.

Below is a summary of what I have previously posted:


The newly Revised Divine Liturgies do not preserve doctrinal precision. The use of what is known as “inclusive language” (“gender neutral language”) creates theological confusion in places where the older text provided theological accuracy. There are numerous examples, but one may suffice here. In the dismissal of the Divine Liturgy the wordings used in the 1964/1965 edition (now in common use) were precise and clear: “For [Christ] is gracious and loves mankind.” The Revised Divine Liturgies render this as “For Christ is good and loves us all.” The term “mankind” clearly refers to all men from Adam to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. The term “us all” is potentially exclusive and could easily mean only those people gathered at that point in time. It does not make sense to replace a translation that was inclusive and doctrinally clear with one that is potentially exclusive and doctrinally confusing.


The translations used in the Revised Divine Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil violate this directive. In the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) they replace the very clear “Who for us men and for our salvation” with the potentially exclusive “who for us and our salvation”. The term “anthropos” is omitted from the Creed, thus changing the Creed. Further, the term that Christ “loves mankind” is reduced to the potentially exclusive “who loves us all”. Similar problems occur through the new texts and it is clear that a simple “find and replace” was done for any term relating to “man” and “men”, changing what was doctrinally precise in the old translation to something that is doctrinally imprecise, potentially exclusive and politically correct in the new text.


The Greek “anthropos” is the exact equivalent of the Latin “homo”. How is it possible that in the year of our Lord 2007 an English translation of any of the Divine Liturgies of any of the Particular Catholic Churches – Eastern or Western – omits the word “anthropos” (“homo”) when the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship has stated that “to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave”? The earlier 1964/1965 edition was correct in using the phrase “for us men and for our salvation”. This error must be corrected.

There are a number of examples of the type of inclusive language prohibited by the Congregation for Divine Worship, not just in the texts of the Revised Divine Liturgies that have been promulgated but also in the changeable texts (the “troparia” and other hymns) for the entire liturgical year that have been rewritten to embrace this type of “inclusive language” (gender neutral language).

The problem now is less that mistakes were made and more that the bishops need to provide a more theologically accurate text. The people deserve good theology in Liturgy and not politically correctness.

Are you fimilar with Calvin's doctrine of the limited atonement? Well, when it comes to the new translation of the Nicene Creed, the RDL drops ‘men,’ from “for us men and for our salvation,” and renders it ‘for us and for our salvation.’ The problem here is one of limited atonement. Did Christ become Incarnate, suffer, die, and rise again only for “us,” or did he rather do it for all of mankind (past, present, and future)? The possible doctrinal error that results from the omission of the word "men" from the Creed stems from the resulting context. The word "men" in this place of the Nicene Creed confesses the fact that Christ came down from heaven to die and atone for the sins of all people, that is, the whole world, since Christ is indeed the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The omission of the word "men" at this point results in a Calvinistic error, namely, the doctrine of a "limited atonement." Calvinists believe that Christ only died to save those who would end up believing (the predestined for salvation). The revision of the Creed opens the way for this understanding because the removal of "men" makes the context revert back to those who say "I believe.’” Hence, "who for us and our salvation" contextually becomes, "who for us (who are saying this creed) and for our salvation" rather than all mankind.

This is a red herring. Of course this particular phrase hasn't been condemned. However, inclusive language has been, and "loves us all," is not the proper translation.



As I said above Christotokos is a perfectly valid term, but it doesn't give the entire picture. The exclusive use of it was condemned in favor Theotokos for that reason.

What specifically in the oath covers this? Also, in addition to those who left the BCC should be added the case of those who stay but cannot in conscience serve.

Too true. It’s one thing to be different and right, another to be different and wrong. What statement are we making as a church – and about ourselves and our competence – with an admitted particular gender-language-driven agenda in translating. The RDL omits the word men from the creed yet our fellow Catholics -- Roman -- have it retained in their new translation as it was in the old.

link




Are Latin rite Catholics better able to comprehend the meaning of men in the creed than Byzantine Catholics? Who is hearing and professing the correct and comprehensive theology? Is there such a cultural gap between the great majority, the Latin rite Catholics, and us? Are we at the vanguard of enlightened translations, leading the way, or rather becoming a well-documented example of what should not be done?

It still begs the question then, why did Rome approve it and allow the Ruthenian bishops to promulgate it?

That is a reasonable question, and has been discussed many times.

Firstly, the approval came in 2001 just before Rome got fed up with rotten translations and gave ICEL new marching orders (ICEL stands for "International Committee on English in the Liturgy" - the group that prepared many translations of the Roman texts but were scrapped). The approval came just weeks before "Liturgiam Authenticam" was promulgated (the document that requires accurate translations (replacing what is called "dynamic" or "paraphrase" translations with those generally called "literal" or "formal" translations)).

The larger issue here is that the bishops had six years to edit the texts to meet the new requirements but instead chose the path of revising rather then embracing the Ruthenian Liturgy, as well as that of putting political correctness into the Liturgy.

Another aspect of the reason behind the reform is Bishop Andrew Pataki. He openly disliked both other Greek Catholics as well as the Orthodox. It was partly his idea to revise the Liturgy to make it so different that should the Church get small enough over time that it could not be merged with other Greek Catholics (although that was one of what appears to be many factors). While he would probably not state such an opinion quite so openly he really didn't hide it, either. Add into that quite a bit of Ruthenian self-loathing (he said that restoring the missing litanies in the form given by the official Liturgcion was "going backwards"). I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but the bishops (and perhaps some on the liturgical commission - all good men who love the Lord and had good intentions) still see our Liturgy as something quaint that needs to be updated to fit modern society, and they see modern Roman Catholicism as the model.

One thing that Bishop Pataki was certainly talented at was getting what he wanted out of the Eastern Congregation. Guess what? The priests who work there are not the highest paid people in the world. They are mostly Latins and don't understand Eastern Liturgy (which is understandable since they are Latins). When a bishop comes to visit and he is a good politician (taking you to dinner and giving you nice Christmas gifts) you tend to give him what he wants. [I'm not faulting the system, only acknowledging that is how it works, and Bishop Pataki's approach was not unreasonably in the reality.] We do know from Fr. Taft he was not allowed to comment on the revisions, and his review was limited to the text only, and did he consider it to be not heretical.

Then there is the very human tendency that makes one who has paid for a a top of the line Cadillac and discovers that they have purchased a used Yugo to try to justify their action. Plus, there is tendency to not to want to reject the work a number of good and well-intentioned men worked very hard on (even if it is very imperfect) and the huge amount of money they spent on that and hiring a professional Roman Catholic musician to set the music.

As the Yugo was on the cutting edge of Serbo-Croatian automotive technology, so the RDL was at the cutting edge of Carpatho-Rusyn liturgical translation.

For the worse:

1. It gives preference to the Greek text rather than the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension as the primary translation text (but not consistently).

2. It arbitrarily changes the rubrics of the Recension Liturgicon and Ordo, at times introducing novelties.

3. Driven by a preconceived agenda and relying on unverifiable data as a justification, it eliminates man/men/mankind language from the translation at the expense of linguistic and theological accuracy and beauty.

4. It mandates an audible recitation of the Anaphora etc., that is, without allowance for transitioning from or option to follow the Recension's legitimate usage.

5. It has unwarranted translations based solely on scholarly opinion and conjecture.

6. It is an abridged liturgy relative to the full text given in the Ruthenian Recension.

7. It is mandated as the sole English language text for the (Ruthenian) Metropolia of Pittsburgh (BCC), thereby enabling and insuring that the defects and innovations, 1-6 above, are the norm. Thus, an abridged rite with substantial translation issues is now the sole primary liturgical expression in English of the BCC.

In general, the RDL is too much of the translators and innovators and (in too many instances) too little of the actual text.

Regarding the promulgated chant: It has failed to find the needed consensus and is too often unlovely and rigid and incorrect (this according to some long-time and notable practitioners and cantors) in its interpretation of prostopinije. It likely compromises and stifles -- most definitely suppresses in English -- the vitality and legitimate diversity of the oral tradition in which Carpatho-Rusin prostopinije has its roots.

The RDL is a fact for our church and more is on the way: the process, the operation continues, fait accompli. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I can't but conclude (and feel) that the process that brought it to us, and the final product, is sufficiently flawed that it is doing more harm than good, is more a deficit than a benefit. Hopefully it will not be the case that the operation was a success but the patient died.

If the a bishop or Bishops of the BCC are known to have an aversion to the Byzantine Rite, maybe it's time for people to start a campaign to have them deposed. They really have no business serving as bishops in a Church where they are against its own liturgy.

Been there, done that. Read about the unfortunate history of Bishop Nicholas Elko.

The Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs clearly does not think well of the people they are supposed to pastor. Has anyone bothered to read the revised texts of the liturgy and of the troparia? There are quite a lot of them that are not even grammatically correct. And we know that there are lot of translation errors. And the music is really awful. And the scandal around the man they paid a lot of money to who wrote it. $2 million and 12 years for this? Where did the money go?

Bishops:

Why do you believe we not worthy of the whole liturgy?

Why are you so embarrassed of our Ruthenian Rite that you cannot permit it to be celebrated?

Why do you believe not us worthy of accurate translations and good music?


Unfortunately, the bishops do not care about the faithful enough to bother to answer letters. And if you ask them in person they give you strange looks and walk away.

Dear Jason,

I've heard this repeated quite a few times, along with the (untrue) assertion that all the music came from "one collection of music from one parish" in the Old Country.

Could you provide a couple of examples of these troparia that are "not even grammatically correct"? (I would wager that they use the vocative correctly, which a lot of English speakers these days don't, but I'd be interested in any actual grammatical errors you could point out.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Where can we read about Bishop Elko?

Jason,

I will agree with Jeff that you should identify the problems. Unless you do there is probably little or no chance that they will be fixed. I recommend documenting all that you find carefully and sending it directly to all four bishops. They probably will not respond but they will have seen it.

As to the texts of the troparia, yes, there are several that are grammatically incorrect. [Good men have put in a good, well-intentioned effort but have created a product with many flaws that need to be corrected.] The larger problem is that there are several that are just bad theology. There are one or two places where the update is so literally accurate that it is awkward. There are others where the change makes the text less accurate. And there is the politics of gender neutral language that is "theologically grave". And there is the issue with a lack of uniform style (one can almost pick out the fingers in the pie). While I would wish to see a real update (that makes the texts literally accurate and eloquent) if that is not possible a return to the older books would be an improvement over the Revised books.

As to the music, there needs to be an acceptance that even Europe has moved on from Bokšaj. The Church in America needs to put the text first and allow the music to serve the text (which would follow the example of how the Slavs originally took the Greek chant and adapted it for the new Church Slavonic text).

I am currently working to record the problems with the new texts and musical settings. When I am done I will send the result to the bishops. I encourage everyone to do the same. Many believe that the bishops don't really care, but we must remember that the Lord can indeed work wonders.

I routinely hear accounts of parishes that are doing their own pew books, and even of priests who have created their own liturgicons. I think the Church is speaking loudly.

John