www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy David Petras: Time For The Lord To Act: A Catechetical Commentary On The DL

I had a very lengthy reply on your book that was removed by Irish Melkite this morning. It was neither rude nor aggressive. I did not save it, but if I find it I will personally send it to you.

Jim,

Exactly how did you find his discussion on Tradition vs traditionalism very relevant to the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy? The only place he really talks about it is on pages 31-33.

But the Liturgical Instruction says:

Father David's point about Rome telling us to develop the Liturgy is inaccurate. Rome told us specifically that restoration precedes updating. Why does Father David reject Rome's directive? This is not the only place where Father David is in error. Anyone familiar with the Vatican documents who reads Father David's book can find dozens of places where he misquotes or misapplies them.

Father David does not say specifically who he charges with traditionalism.

He quotes Jaroslav Pelikan: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Does he apply it to Rome, who has directed us to restore the 1941 Sluzebnik? Is Rome guilty of traditionalism? Is Rome directing us to the dead faith of the living?

Does he apply it to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who has recently ordered that the 1941 Sluzebnik and the other books (including the Ordo Celebrationis)? Are the Ukrainians guilty of traditionalism? Are the Ukrainians imitating the dead faith of the living?

Does he apply it to all of Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is certainly not making any of the changes Father David is urging our bishops to make.

Who exactly is guilty of traditionalism? Father David never says. He only hints that anyone who disagrees with his revision of the Liturgy is guilty of traditionalism.

Father David is certainly a capable scholar. I also know him as a good and holy man. It is a shame that he chose not to produce a scholarly work.

JD

Father David,

Don't exaggerate.

Father Anthony does not question your ability to write well, your ability to teach or your ability to do decent scholarship. His review of is only of your one work. Surely you do not claim that all of your work is perfect and beyond criticism?

You have not provided references or footnotes. You cannot claim that your book is scholarly.

JD

John Damascene is correct with regard to the page numbers in Fr. Petras' book for the subchapter "Tradition and the Liturgy". It is on pages 31 through 33. I particularly like Father's statement on page 33:

Father says, "We must avoid "traditionalism" like a plague, for a mindless clinging to what has been done can distort and ruin Tradition, but we must be true "traditionalists," people who work to understand the faith and to celebrate it with beauty."

I am all for celebrating the Divine Liturgy with beauty and being a true traditionalist. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. How are we following tradition by leaving men out of the Creed and mankind out of the Divine Liturgy? What is mindless about a faithful translation? Speaking of "traditionalists" is an easy out for dealing with those who want to actually follow, well, for lack of a better term and in the words of Tevya, TRADITION!

Jim - anyone who reads this Forum even casually would have to see the irony that you are a "fond supporter" of the group that advocates such a strict adherence to the chant/music in the Bokshaj Prostopinije that "slavery" would not be a strong enough term, yet you have no problem with a Liturgikon that would chop up the Divine Liturgy beyond the point of recognition.

This type of inconsistency is proof positive that the COMMON AGENDA is "change for the sake of change."

Matthew,

Whatever possessed you to name me as the Moderator who removed your post, I strongly recommend that you know of what you speak before you do so. I neither saw your post nor removed it and know of it only because another poster mentioned it to me.

Many years,

Neil

PAL & All,

The purpose of this forum is discussion of books - in this case Father David's book. One can certainly conclude that individual opinions regarding his work are formed, to some extent, on the biases of the reviewer. However, keep in mind:

• each is entitled to their own opinion of it, regardless of how formed,
• there is no requirement that anyone's opinion mirror their words, thoughts, or actions vis-a-vis any other aspect of ecclesial or liturgical life
• the function of this discussion is NOT a review or critique of any reviewer

Hence, future posts should focus on the merit of the work, presentation of one's opinions regarding the content, and dialogue, discussion, and debate of the opinions offered by others, presented in a manner that is civil, charitable, and satisfies the standards of discourse in polite society. Posts which fail to satisfy that standard risk being deleted.

Many years,

Neil

Good Morning Neil!

Yes, you are correct. I assumed it was you based on the fact I you happened to be online during the time it was removed (according to the online box). I simply used my engineering skills to deduct 1 + 1 = 2 and as it is, I accused the wrong person.

Please accept my apologies.

Warmest regards,
Matthew

Blessings to all during this wonderous time of year!

Please keep the discussion centered around Father David's book. Deviation of the topic will result in possible editing of the post. I also ask that only those who possess the book comment. This will assist with the flow of the thread.

Thank you.

In Christ,

Michael B.

Fr. Petras' book again touches on liturgical change in closing his section on Antiphons on page 60:

"Whenever a modification is made in the Liturgy, not everyone will agree with it, for our prayer is too close to the center of our faith and to our relationship with God. What is more important, though, is that our Liturgy is the act of a community under the leadership of our bishops. We are not seeking our own will, but to acknowledge the presence of God together in the Body of Christ that is the Church."

I hope his book helps prepare many people for what may be coming.

Jim,

How is it that, in providing an incorrect translation of the Creed (on an issue which Rome has made its mind known), they are not seeking their own will?

lm

The change in the Creed is not directed to the common good but rather special interest groups and it is theologically wrong:



III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

B. In the Creed... the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text "For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

from: Vatican document 2002 sets, Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal.

By our new translation of the Creed, we isolate ourselves from the Roman Church, fellow Byzantine Catholics and sound Orthodoxy.

Not to mention the omission of the verses of the antiphons, the litanies between the antiphons, and various other litanies.

No one has ever given an explanation of the _need_ for the changes. We are told we must follow, because bishops are mandating this change, and we should be obedient. But we are never told why they are mandating the changes. Questions get silence as a response. It is clericalism in the extreme.

I had hoped Fr. David's book would provide these reasons, but from what I have read here, it does not.

It is not my intention to advocate for the change in the Creed, but in all fairness to those who do advocate for inclusive language, I think this argument has problems of its own. If we claim that stating "For us and for our salvation" instead of "For us men and for our salvation" could imply that the "us" refers only to those individuals present at any particular DL, then we must also consider the possibility that in praying "in peace let us pray to the Lord" we are faced with the same problem.
In peace,
Ryan