www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1

Author: Serge Keleher

Title: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy � 1
The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

Stauropegion Press
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Cost: $20 + $4 per book shipping & handling.

This book is a commentary on the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy according to the 12 October 2004 �final version�.

Since this book is relevant to the current discussion on the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy I am creating this thread as a placeholder for specific discussions of the book.

Father David Petras has written a review of this book and offers it at his website. Click here to read it on Fr. David\'s website. [davidpetras.com] I have posted the full text below to make it easier for Forum readers to access it.


RESPONSE TO FR. KELEHER [davidpetras.com]

Serge Keleher, Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I. The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. (Pittsburgh: Stauropegion Press, 2006). 280 pp. Plus Appendix.

Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work.

It should be noted, before beginning, that the October 2004 draft is not the most current. Another draft was issued June 4, 2005, which will modify some of Fr. Keleher�s remarks.

Chapter 1 is an apologia (defense) of the author�s right to critique the translation. I certainly would not deny him that right. He admits (p. 11) that the original Ruthenian Recension (by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Rome, 1941, in Church Slavonic, but not cited in this chapter, he refers to the translation of that text by the Pittsburgh Metropolia in 1964/65)) can be revised, but accurately states the question of whether the Proposed Draft is an appropriate revision (p. 12) One might ask the further question whether his critique meets the principles of constructive or destructive criticism. On p. 10, he quotes Archbishop Quinn, who defines destructive criticism as �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority.� (P. 10)

Chapter 2 is entitled �The Controversy and its Historical Setting. This chapter contains much valuable information. In regard to the interchange between Bishop Daniel Ivancho and the Oriental Congregation in 1953, the Congregation granted part of what the Bishop asked for, precisely because these particular practices were not latinizations, except for the very troublesome consumation of the gifts during the hymn, �May our mouth be filled... � This has been corrected in the newest proposal. The Congregation granted him only what he asked for - a temporary dispensation, though no time limit is mandated. In reality, the only really important issue remaining from this is the question of when the Royal Doors should be opened and closed. We will return to this question.

Fr. Keleher then tells the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. I was a participant in that story. Fr. Keleher sees it as the promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon, and indeed, that was the goal of Bishop Emil, depending on his advisors, chiefly Fr. Eugene Chromoga and Fr. Victor Herberth. At the time, I was a young priest, recently returned from studies in Rome. This also was my vision. One problem of interpretation ever since, however, is the fact that Bishop Emil did promulgate it in what was then labeled as a �pastoral fashion.� Most of the litanies were made optional, that is, they retained the same status as previous systems. Even in the primitive days, before and after the 1941 Roman recension, priests felt obliged by the law to say all the litanies, only they did them silently. Sometimes, as at the small litanies, the faithful would chant the responses, �Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; To you, O Lord. Amen.� It is difficult for us today to understand the legalistic mentality of those times. Today, if litanies are not said, they are not said, even silently. The net result was that, even if the 1986 promulgation of the Ruthenian recension - and it was seen as such - di not make the recitation of the litanies �facultative,� it nonetheless had the positive effect of making more of the litanies public than Bishop Emil�s 1970 promulgation.

It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension. On p. 40, he moves from history to speculation. He quotes Fr. Lambert Beauduin to say that one must experience a Liturgy before one can reform it. This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it. Of course, Lambert Beauduin was not referring to the 1941 Liturgicon, nor probably to any discrete written text. To �experience a Liturgy� would certainly mean to participate in it and in the ways it brings us to God. One could truly experience the Byzantine Divine Liturgy - even the 1941 version of it - without some of the litanies - that is, the prayers, the hymns, the rubrics, the incense, the colors and light, the word of God and the taste of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Here I must digress a bit from the review of his book, and I apologize. One of the problems I see from this whole affair is that the claim is being made that nothing else but the literal execution of a certain written text will suffice. This is, then, a textual problem, and one that leads to different conclusions depending on the premises from which you begin. Meditate on this: can you experience a human meal, the organic foodstuffs, the table conversation, the refreshment of the body, without having dessert? Can one come to faith in the resurrection of Christ without reading the Lukan account? One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the gospels, and, indeed, I have seen that happen many times. Yes, there is a problem in what you can omit and what must be there, but we can discern this, for that is why we are human beings inspired by God. We can make these kinds of decisions. The Divine Liturgy is for us, we are not for the Divine Liturgy. We might even be able to fulfill the vocation of the Church to be faithful to our Eastern heritage without saying the two small litanies. We are not slaves of the text to that degree.

Fr. Keleher ends the chapter on history with a long quotation from Fr. Taft.(pages 41-45). The quotation is solid and beautiful. It rings quite true and mentions a number of important Eastern litrurgical practices that must be experienced for it to be true and authentic. In chapter 6, pp. 131-133, Fr. Keleher lists what he likes about the 2004 draft. This list is small, but it touches on some of the points made by Fr. Taft. The basic disagreement remains - I think that the Liturgy as envisioned by the Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does respond to Fr. Taft�s challenge, finally, and even in details. The problem is that it does not meet Fr. Keleher�s criteria.

Chapter 3 deals with �the process of secrecy.� ON one likes to be kept in darkness about a process that is going on, and this has been the case with the deliberations of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission for about ten years now. Perhaps he is right and there has been too much secrecy. It was the method decided upon in order to encourage the members to greater courage to express their honest opinions. The more cynical might grumble, �to protects their asses.� I did not like working under such secrecy, and more openness might have defused much of the criticism pouring out now. The opinions of the people, though, were not totally ignored. More than half the members of the Commission are pastors, who, it is felt, would be in sympathy with the people�s needs and desires. Though the complaint might be made that this is not adequate, that the people should speak for themselves, nonetheless, it was not therefore completely ignored. At the same time, the tempest that has been raised did teach me a little about human nature and secrecy. In the Roman Church, liturgical reform is carried on from above, the central authority commissions new books, and then they are promulgated to begin on a fixed date. When this occurs, though, there is usually an uproar, but eventually the Church conforms (well, more or less, which proves there is a process of reception). It has been pointed out by some that this doesn�t happen in the Eastern Church, though the Studite reform of the office, the Niconian reforms and the Moghilan reform might indicate otherwise). In each case, though, after a period of reception, the reform itself is accepted as the normative text. Thus, Rome found it difficult to reform the Tridentine reform (the Vatican reform is still in a period of reception).

At the same time, I have learned that if action is not taken from above, nothing will happen. Liturgy is inherently conservative. If people don�t relate to the Liturgy any longer, they usually don�t call for a reform, they just drift away. If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. This was the pattern we have seen in 1965. The Divine Liturgy was translated into English, this was a major reform which changed the liturgical experience of the people decisively for all time. There was an uproar. Eventually, it was accepted, after a fashion, and, now, when the situation is being reviewed, there is another uproar. The point is that if you open the process to all people, nothing will ever be able to be properly addressed.

The fact is that while some people experience the Liturgy in a healthy way, others do not, and do not want their experience to be challenged. Many people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Experts are needed - perhaps not so much to lead us into a new land, but to save us from our own folly. I would hold that some liturgical reform is desperately needed. We no longer live in Niconian Russia - we have experienced the rise of technology, the atomic bomb, the holocaust of the Jews, and, indeed, of many peoples, the devastation of World Wars, we cry to God from our hearts. How can this people be reunited with their God? The Byzantine Church has remained aloof from these problems. In Russia and Greece, the major Byzantine territories, the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular is being resisted - even by the people, who perhaps cry, �do not bring us into contact with these problems, keep it obscure.� We need, however, to experience the mystery of God�s redemption. If the Liturgy is to speak to us, it must be in our language, and it is clear from the very structure of the Liturgy, that when it �goes� into the vernacular, the structure is going to change. This is why you have �pastors� in the church, to help guide the people. Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response to help guide them to God, based on the authentic liturgical experience of our church. They have made the determination that the presbyteral prayers, which especially express the anamnetic aspect of the Liturgy - that is, that we are remembering our Lord Jesus Christ, in our midst, is important and crucial for our age. Fr. Keleher, of course, thinks differently, cf. Chapter 11.

A universal consultation would have precluded any action from the beginning. I feel that a limited consultation might have been profitable, but this was not the path chosen. I can understand from the present reaction why the shepherds are gun-shy. Even so, the process was not elitist or gnostic. When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people. I myself have written a book, which has been printed but not yet released, but which has been public in the newspaper articles. There will also be visual aids. My only regret is that this project is moving so slow that it has given some an opportunity ot condemn the Liturgy before it is even given a hearing.

Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of �Inclusive Language.� I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I�m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean �extreme� - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some �text� in which the Spirit can write clearly. The proceedings of the Liturgy Commission are confidential, so I speak only of myself, and that this is a controversy which has swirled around me and in which I have not taken a leadership position. The commission are not out and out feminists, that is not the issue.

However, in his book, Fr. Keleher has pointed ten instances of discrete horizontal �inclusive language.� I will speak of these only generally. I would first like to note that the letter from the Oriental Congregation recommended some use of horizontal inclusive language, which, I suppose, shows that Rome is not as monolithic as we would suppose. Some have suggested, of course, that the Oriental Congregation is wrong on this point and should conform itself to other dicasteries, but I would guess that this would mean that the other dicasteries could also be wrong. As mentioned, one cannot get into this without �extreme� emotion.

In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term �lover of mankind,� Philanthropos, �mankind� being labeled as a sexist term. This could actually be easily solved, saying simply �Lover of humankind.� It means exactly the same thing, avoids gender exclusivity, adds one syllable, and is not a �neologism,� since it has been around since the sixteenth century, as the Oxford English Dictionary has pointed out. Of course, it is not possible to propose this without �extreme� emotion, and those opposed to inclusive language generally go ballistic at this suggestion. Why? I think because it is an easy fix. They don�t want an easy fix, but to force �feminists � to use more circuitous language that can be more easily ridiculed. �Humankind� then is rejected as bowing to the �feminist agenda.� The critics point out that �loving us all,� is ambiguous, and as much as I am in sympathy with the problem, I think fairly that it is a double standard. �Man� can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it�s always clear from �context.� As clear, I think, from �context,� as �lover of us all.� The divine title philanthropos is particularly a Byzantine problem, and it occurs so frequently. If there is going to be such trouble over the gender problem, I would propose that we simply use �lover of humankind,� and in other cases conform to what has been approved for the Roman Catholic Church in America. It is undoubtedly too late for this suggestion, however.

What should one say about �feminism.� I would certainly hold to a sound theology, which would hold that men and women, as human persons, are equal in dignity and redemption but not in role. In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for �extreme� emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the �text,� the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed. The Pittsburgh Metropolia, nor the Oriental Congregation, nor for that matter the Holy See, has control over the language used in the world. This is the problem that the Church has not adequately faced. The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church�s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church�s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet that it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of �text� in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.

There is in the background another problem that has not been addressed. This is related, but getting off-topic a bit, so I�ll just mention it. As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, most proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. I think the central spirituality of men is fatherhood, either spiritual or physical. The role of a father is to bring out the best in the potentiality of his children. In regard to physical children, sometimes fathers abuse this by forcing their own image on them. Fathers frequently do not know how to relate to their daughters or their wives, or how to bring out their best potential. I tell my seminarians over and over again, if the church says that the priesthood is a male role, then you must be a spiritual father to the women under your pastoral care. You must bring out their best spiritual potential, not put them down, but men often do not know how to do this. Our culture does not teach this. The challenge to priests and fathers in these days is unbelievably high pressure, so it is no wonder that men sometimes �crack,� and become abusers.

Chapter 5. �The Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father John Chrysostom.� The author first expects full information and responsibility for a text that was not intended for general circulation, and which he has made available on his own cognizance. That certainly requires a good deal of hubris. Information and formation on this new text is being made available (cf. Above) to the priests and faithful of the Metropolia. Unfortunately, we do not have a branch office in Dublin. [p. 71, the Exarchate was established in 1924, not 1925.]

Most of chapter 5 consists of quotations from various documents.: the commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, by Neophytos Edelby; other commentaries by Victor Pospishil and Ignatius Dick; the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996, and others. Most of the material is to buttress his thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as much as possible. For Keleher, as applied to the Ruthenian Liturgy, this would mean following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though he does allow for occasional exceptions. It is difficult to disagree with these documents, and I would reaffirm the principle of fidelity to our Eastern heritage. Since the Eastern Church is mostly Orthodox, that would include a fidelity also to Orthodox principles of Liturgy. This would be a given, and I would probably extol the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik even more than Keleher as a magnificent work of scholarship, a jewel of Byzantine liturgical history, and an accomplishment which cannot be given enough praise. Indeed, in my priesthood, I have striven to make it my ultimate model, and to strive to eliminate all latinizations from Ruthenian practice. I have not always been successful, and the most serious latinization in my opinion is the use of pre-cut particles rather than the comminution of the ahnec (lamb) for Holy Communion. I do not hold with Fr. Keleher, however, that fidelity to the 1941 Sluzhebnik necessarily includes reciting all the litanies.

The next problem I would address is that of ecumenism. In general, the See of Rome wants us to be as faithful as possible to our Eastern heritage, so that the Orthodox will not be scandalized by latinizations. Again, I have no difficulty in fidelity to Orthodoxy, but since becoming actively involved with the official dialogue (the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation) since 1983, I have acquired a new sensitivity to our relationships with the Orthodox Churches. On the ecumenical level, the method of uniatism to unite our two churches has been disavowed. This means, certainly, no piecemeal unions with parts of Eastern Churches and no proselytism. It does not mean that the Eastern Churches in union with Rome must cease to exist, nor, and this is important, cease to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of their own faithful. The original vision of Rome saw us as a tool to unity, as a bridge to Orthodoxy, but the �bridge theory� has fallen with the disavowal of uniatism, if, indeed, it could have ever been effective with the bulk of the Orthodox Church. There is, of course, a variety of opinions about the Eastern Catholic Churches among the Orthodox, and all of these opinions are more or less negative. The most negative is that we Eastern Catholics are a betrayal of Orthodoxy, an abomination upon the face of the earth, and that any attempt to look like Orthodox is the tool of proselytism on our part. We should simply become the Roman Catholics that we are. Other more moderate Orthodox are much more realistic. They know that the present-day �Uniates� are not the ones who betrayed Orthodoxy, and they look forward to our return to Orthodoxy. The first group, naturally, would be totally uninterested as to what we do liturgically, its all a sham, Roman Catholicism in Orthodox clothing. The second group are often interested in the liturgical life of our churches, but it would never form a motivation for their reunion with Rome. So this vision, that if we are good and faithful to our Orthodox heritage, we will foster reunion, is completely baseless. To put it in common language, �it ain�t gonna happen.�

Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody�s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don�t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions. We also have the advantage of excellent scholarship on liturgical matters, which can be used for our advantage. My conclusion is that the most Orthodox thing we can do is act for our own spiritual welfare. However, what it seems to me is that there are some who want to take away our independence and enslave it to a vacuous and ineffective ecumenical program. By not allowing for our own dignity, they make us the ultimate �uniates,� a self-proclaimed tool to try to win over the Orthodox.

Review written by Father David Petras [davidpetras.com]

My thanks to Father David for his thoughtful and welcome review of my recent book. The Internet makes it possible to exchange ideas and information much more easily than was the case earlier, and with the likelihood that the matter will still be fresh in everyone�s mind. I have been looking forward to Father David�s review, because I remember his excellent review of Father Casimir Kucharek�s book a number of years ago.

Father David remarks that the sub-title �explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation�. This seems strange � the book�s content surely makes it clear that I am not pleased with the translation, but the phrase �the real reason for the book� implies something occult or clandestine � had that been the case I would hardly have put it on the front cover and the title page! But never mind.

Father David writes that �the October 2004 draft is not the most current. Another draft was issued June 4, 2005, which will modify some of Fr. Keleher�s remarks.� [He then fails to provide even one example of anything in the later draft which would cause me to change my remarks.] The October 2004 draft is clearly labelled � This is a final version � � and that appears on every page, as can be seen from the copy in the Appendix of my book. But then, back when I was an undergraduate (before the invention of the wheel), we all knew that one must understand deadlines: there is the announced deadline; there is the final deadline, there is the absolutely final deadline and then there is the real deadline. May we take it that the 4 June 2005 draft is the absolutely final version, with the real version yet to come?

I have not admitted; I have written, quite frankly and at some length, that the original �Ruthenian Recension� of 1941 can and should be revised, in the light of sources which have become available since 1941 (I myself am among the prime movers in the publication of the 1639 Leitourgiarion of Saint Peter Mohyla, which I cite in the present book) and in the light of scholarship since that time. And I have stated that an unavoidable element in such a reconsideration and revision is a thorough familiarity with the Ruthenian Recension as it stands � which is a major part of the problem at issue; since Pittsburgh never implemented those books one may severely question whether Pittsburgh is the place which should unilaterally modify them.

Dear me. Father David strongly implies that he finds my criticism �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority� � in words which he takes from a quote I provided from Archbishop Quinn. Perhaps Father David should count the number of references in my book to the published writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and explain how they show that I am without reverence for authority. Whose authority am I supposedly lacking in reverence for, by criticising a draft? By definition, a draft does not itself have authority and it is normally circulated precisely to seek criticism. I did not steal my copy of the October 2004 draft, nor did I bribe anyone to give it to me � I didn�t even ask anyone to give it to me; it was sent to me with a request for my criticisms. I am also unable to appreciate why the point that such a recasting should be done in cooperation with other Greek-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox makes me �blind to a larger vision�. I would have thought that I am calling for a larger vision. Since I have no ambition whatever to write service-books for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, and have never attempted to do so, I am not in competition for the privilege. �Divisive� and �intemperate� are problematic terms � but Father David is aware that I did not create the existing difference of views on the matter in question � and Father David states this elsewhere in the review. Whether my book is �intemperate� is not for me to judge.

Father David finds that Chapter 2 contains much valuable information. I would agree with Father David that most of the dispensations granted to Bishop Daniel by the Oriental Congregation did not involve tolerating latinizations. I well remember that bizarre practice of sotto voce recitation of synaptes and so on � it always struck me as a form of madness!

I think I have discerned a typographical error in the review; Father David writes that �One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the gospels�� I suspect strongly that he means the two small synaptes between the Antiphons . But there are typographical errors in my book as well, so I too live in a glass house and should not throw stones!

Father David writes that I tell the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. As it happens, I was a guest at Bishop Emil�s consecration (and at the cocktail party memorable for the Latin reading of the Papal Bull). I well remember the high hopes and early promise of Bishop Emil�s episcopate. I cannot be certain after all these years, but I think that it was on that occasion that Father David and I first met.

Father David asks if we can experience the fullness of a human meal without partaking of dessert. In view of the larger discussion: the question might better be �can we experience the fullness of a human meal if no dessert is offered?� The answer is that on occasion, yes, we can. But if dessert is never offered at dinner, we will all agree that something is missing (as the little boy said on learning that there would be no dessert that evening �you mean I ate all that for nothing?�)! Even those two small synaptes do have a point � and it is interesting that the final version (as distinct from the absolutely final version) leaves out the two small synaptes but leaves in the prayers with which they are associated � and then prescribes that the ecphoneses shall be offered silently! There are certain occasions when we may omit the entire Enarxis � but if it were never used we would miss it. Why do those two small synaptes, which take little time, exercise Father David?

So far I note two basic points on which Father David and I disagree. Father holds that the time is ripe for a recasting of the Divine Liturgy, which is appropriately done by the Pittsburgh Metropolia. We differ there. Whether the proposed recasting of October 2004 fulfils Father Taft�s criteria which I quote on pp. 41-45 is a point of serious disagreement. Father David thinks that it does; my position is that it represents yet another attempt to stonewall the Ruthenian Recension.

Chapter 3 (on secrecy) seems to have struck a nerve, and Father David agrees that perhaps my position is right. He then suggests that secrecy was and is used to give the commission members greater courage to express their honest opinions. There is a case for that approach in a theoretical discussion. In a decision-making process, on a matter which will touch the deepest spiritual life of a substantial community, that argument is much weaker. There are tried and true ways of letting the substance of the argument be known to those interested without necessarily stating precisely who said exactly what. It is possible to circulate written papers on particular topics (if need be without giving the name of the author) and invite responses. There is no choice these days; one must attempt to ensure that the people involved know what is going on, and have ample opportunity to express themselves. A broad, free discussion can result in both the clergy and the faithful gaining a sense of �ownership� of the result � and that is no small advantage. Nowadays, with the use of the Internet, it would be possible to circulate such papers far and wide at little or no expense.

Father David cites the Nikonian reform � that tragedy resulted in numerous horrific martyrdoms, a schism which at its height separated the official Russian Church from 20 million faithful, who eventually succeeded in restoring their own hierarchy, a terrible persecution and, perhaps worst of all, a weakness and cynicism in Russian Orthodoxy which made it possible for Emperor Peter I to turn the official Church into an enslaved �Department� of the Russian government, unable even to convoke a plenary synod for over 200 years. I trust that upon reflection Father David will agree that this is not a model to follow.

Of course Liturgy is inherently conservative � I pointed that out myself in the book. But Father David�s stated position that �if
action is not taken from above, nothing will happen.�If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction� shows a striking contempt for the clergy and faithful. Given a peaceful opportunity for fair and open discussion, there are enough educated people in the Ruthenian Metropolia to keep the discussion on a reasonable level, realizing that while Liturgy is inherently conservative, it is not immobile and the immobilist position is unrealistic.

Father David writes that �many people do not even have the first clue as to what the Liturgy is supposed to be�. That is not an argument in favor of reform; having another upheaval and uproar will not teach such people what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Father David has demonstrated my point: the need for a patient, lengthy process of education and development. Archbishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, of blessed memory, often said that the time to introduce a change in the Liturgy is not when the experts think it should be done, but the time when our faithful are increasingly asking us �well, why don�t we do . . .� whatever it is. My book mentions Father Daniel Donovan. When he was in Old Forge, it was the time when what is now the OCA was starting to move the Liturgy into English. Father Daniel, who is nobody�s fool, preached in English but did the services in Church-Slavonic until the parish council formally asked him to begin serving in English as well, and assured him that the parish would provide the necessary books and other materials. Result: he had no trouble whatsoever with the move into English. Had he attempted to force the process, there could have been serious violence.

Father David argues passionately for the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular. But I have not in the least argued against it � to the contrary, I have been a vernacularist since the nineteen-fifties and have done considerable work on translations myself. He then links this matter to the question of the offering of the Anaphora aloud. As I asked in my book, so I ask again: did the recitation of the Canon of the Roman Mass aloud since Vatican II lead to the sort of results Father David wants? But anyway, I�ve devoted an entire 25-page chapter to this matter; I would ask Father David to re-read it with an open mind. The Anaphora is crucially important, not only for our age, but for every age, including the age to come. But it is a long way from that statement to the insistence that the Anaphora must always and everywhere be offered aloud. It is far more important that the Anaphora should be taught and the faithful brought to understand it.

Again Father David argues that a universal consultation would have precluded any action! Why? It might have meant a longer process, but that is no unbearable flaw. It seems truly strange that Father David has so little trust in the clergy and faithful of his own Local Church.

Father David would like to �table� the discussion of the �inclusive language� issue. That could easily have been accomplished � by refraining from introducing �inclusive language�. Has there truly been a massive demand from the clergy and faithful of the Pittsburgh Metropolia for �inclusive language�? I rather doubt it. But there is another book from another author in the pipeline, so I shall let the question rest for a while. However, Father David yet again mentions a mysterious letter from the Oriental Congregation � so long as that letter is not available for all to read, no one is obligated to take references to it with great seriousness.

I have devoted several chapters and many pages to specific criticisms of the translations of certain words and phrases. Father David responds to none of these criticisms, with the single exception of the matter of inclusive language. The same applies to rubrics � I devoted a 30-page chapter to rubrics, and the only comment from Father David is a brief mention of disagreement regarding the Royal Doors. Are we to take it that he agrees with me on everything else?

My thanks to Father David for one correction � any new edition of my book will have the date of 1924 for the establishment of the Pittsburgh Exarchate.

My book certainly makes the October 2004 �final version� available � and not before time � but, while I certainly accept responsibility for the decision to do that, it was not done purely on my own initiative. I was asked by several friends, including a fair number of clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, to write a critique of the draft. I could scarcely have done that without letting the readers know what, precisely, I was critiquing. If that requires hubris, well, I have often been called a fool, but rarely have I been called a coward. The draft has nothing on it resembling any assertion of a copyright. Again, it purports on every page to be the �final version�. As for the availability of information, it was priests and faithful of the Pittsburgh Metropolia who appealed to me to write this book, not my own faithful in Dublin (where we do not serve in English anyway). If Father David would like to have a branch office in Dublin, well, that can be discussed! Meanwhile, Father David himself is always welcome to visit here.

But speaking of hubris, consider this. Father David actually writes that it is my thesis that �the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their own traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as much as possible�!!!!! I am unable to believe that this is really what Father David intended to write, since there is absolutely nothing in my book, or in the rest of my published works, which justifies the attribution to me of the idea that �the Eastern Catholic Churches should � distance themselves from the Orthodox as much as possible�! Either this is a lapsus calami, or it is someone�s idea of a joke. In either case, I will appreciate an immediate retraction and apology.


But back to a more credible matter. It is, of course, true that the Eastern Catholic Churches (more specifically in this instance, the Greek-Catholic Churches) may and must act in response to the spiritual needs of their own faithful. One might ask whether a process of liturgical recasting which deliberately excludes any consultation with the faithful, or even with most of the clergy, is responding to much of anything, but never mind. We need not, in one sense, become �cardboard Orthodox�, trying to provide the appearance of Orthodoxy without the content (no doubt there are still a few such people around, but I have not met any in recent decades, thank God). If we are to make any sense even to ourselves, let alone to anyone else, the theology of our Liturgy must be our own theology � and if it isn�t, the answer is not to change the Liturgy but to allow the Liturgy to inform our theology. Father Cyril Korolevsky made that point very well indeed 79 years ago.

I certainly do not, to take only one example, advocate the �repristination� of the practice of receiving Holy Communion once a year at most! I could go on with a long list would be neither edifying nor useful. But to write, as I did (in accordance with documents I quoted) that our translations should be in reasonable conformity with Eastern Orthodox translations, that we should be cautious and unhurried in introducing changes in the Liturgy, that we should be conscious that we are, whether we like it or not, part of a much larger community, is not to argue in favor of the restoration of Jansenism.

Moreover, there is also the middle distance. As I wrote in my opening chapter, what the Pittsburgh Metropolia does will have an effect on the other Local Churches of our common tradition. This is all the more true in the context of the other Local Churches to whom the Ruthenian Recension applies (either in theory or in practice). For Pittsburgh simply to sail off on its own is a questionable procedure.

Repeatedly Father David opposes any suggestion of the practical use of the 1941 Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, but he never quite explains his objection. If he considers it pastorally unsuitable, has he taken into account what happens in parishes where it is used as part of a good pastoral program? If he considers it objectionable in itself, what are the bases of his objections?

Except for that one quote, which really is outrageous but which I strongly suspect is no more than a typographical error (probably the inadvertent omission of an intended negative adverb), I appreciate Father David�s review and look forward to continuing the discussion. If he cares to provide me with the later draft of June 2005, I shall be happy to rewrite the relevant chapters of my book. Meanwhile, he again has my thanks. Several people are undertaking to write reviews of the book, but Father David is the first to produce one. Who gives quickly, gives twice!

Serge Keleher

Father, bless! Be assured of the prayers and support of me and many others in this vitally needed work - there has been no other forum or opportunity to make this vital (vital is not too strong a word) information and comments available considering the circumstances before us. I will be ordering the book post-haste.
FDD

Unfortunately, the review that appears on my web site is an unfinished project. I announced that I would be posting it, and then when some went there and did not find anything, I decided to post what was done up to that point. So more will be coming. I do apologize to people, if in any way I implied that I do not have confidence in the people of our church. The reality is that I have received much support and encouragement from most of the people I meet. However, I say that only with trepidation, because I know on this Forum, where the official line is that everyone to a "man" is opposed to the IELC work, I will be "flamed" for saying that.

So, look for further updates on the review, about which I will keep you informed,

Father David

My thanks first to Diak (since he wrote first) with my hopes that he may enjoy the book. My thanks also to Father David. And if it's any consolation, I rather doubt that all the participants in this Forum, to which I am quite new myself, obviously, since I just registered today after the Administrator announced my book (for which I am also grateful) are unanimously opposed to the work of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission; in some other postings I've found several participants who are strongly supportive of the commission's work. But I'm no judge; the only thing I'm really aware of is the October 2004 draft.

If I may be allowed the point, I suspect that the impression of massive opposition on this Forum arises as a direct result of the absence of any other place where one may register one's criticisms in the assurance that someone will read them - even just the lurkers such as I was until a few hours ago!

Serge Keleher

I don't have anything to say about the Liturgy, but I have a question:

What is "Stauropegion Press"? I've never heard of anything by this name in the US, but I have some old books printed by the "Stavropegial Institute" of Lvov (now Lviv)--are they related?

Maybe Pittsburgh is the New Lviv?

Dave

I thank Father David for letting us know that the work was still an �unfinished project�. It was brought to my attention only that the review was released. I reposted it so that it might be read by as many people as possible, in the interest of fairness. Had it been labeled �draft� I would have either not posted it or posted it with the title �draft�.

I do take issue with Father David's belief that the entire Forum is opposed to IELC work. There are those on the Forum who have supported it. I myself have indicated that there is much good work hiding behind an inadequate standard. All that needs to be done to fix the problems is to return to an adequate standard and then to modify the work to adhere literally to that standard. [The standard, of course, being the Ruthenian recension (text and rubrics) and without the offensive gender neutral language.]

I agree with Father David that the topic of gender neutral language is a difficult one. But he is the one who has placed it on the table, since he has led the commission to include such language in the texts of the Revised Liturgy. But then I am sure we will discuss these in more detail as we take the chapters one by one after people have a chance to order and receive their copies.

I look forward to Father David�s completed review and will post it here for everyone to read. I will comment further at a later time.

Admin

That's a new one; please explain.

Stauropegion Press is related to the Stauropegion Brotherhood, which has been in existence for over 400 years. The Stauropegion was set up in 1589 by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and managed to obtain a privileged position in the publication of liturgical books. In 1709, the Stauropegion entered into its very own communion with Rome. The Stauropegion continued to print books and hold various related programs until World War II, when first the Nazis and then the Communists confiscated their buildings and stopped all their publishing and educational work. Like so many other things, the Stauropegion continued in the underground, saving what could be saved in the way of books, icons and similar relics. For a time there was an effort in Chicago to revive the publishing work, but that ceased, for reasons which I don't know. Almost the last public appearance of the Stauropegion on its home ground occurred in 1939, when Blessed Nicholas (Charnetsky) presided at celebrations of the 350th anniversary and offered Pontifical Divine Liturgy at the Stauropegion Church of the Holy Dormition, in L'viv.

By a pleasant coincidence, when the Greek-Catholic Church was emerging from the underground, I happened to meet the remaining members in L'viv. They urged a revival of the publishing work in the diaspora, partly because it was not yet possible to begin such work in the then USSR and partly because the rapid development of modern printing technology meant that even if it had been possible to regain possession of the premises and equipment which had belonged to the Stauropegion before World War II, it would be unthinkable to use that equipment for printing again.

Should you visit L'viv (which is worth doing, by the way) you can see the exterior of the Stauropegion buildings - with the name "Stauropegion" chiselled deep into the lintel above the entrance to the complex. The Stauropegion Church is now in the hands of one of the autocephalous groups, although that may yet change. The Stauropegion Church is noteworthy for its architecture, its iconostasis (which came from another old church edifice in Western Ukraine and doesn't quite fit the dimensions of the Stauropegion Church, but so it goes) and in particular the stained-glass windows done by Kholodny, one of the early leaders of the 20th century revival of iconography. It's nearly miraculous that the church edifice was not seriously damaged during World War II.

Serge Keleher

Dear Fr. Keleher,

Thank you so much for writing this book. I was able to get my own copy and just finished reading it. I do hope that Fr. David or someone else on the committee that drafted the liturgy will go point by point and explain the translation choices.

And I think that the discussion of inclusive language must certainly be untabled, because there are clear theological issues at stake. I have asked Fr. David a few times in this forum to explain why the innacurate but inclusive "for us men and for our salvation" is preferred to the accurate "for us men" or "for us humans." While he is at it, he can explain why "Lover of us all" is preferred by the committee to "Lover of mankind" or, as Patriarch Gregorios says "who loves every human being," both of which are accurate renditions of philanthropos. There are more inclusive mistranslations, such as "fathers and brothers" becoming "brothers and sisters," that I would like to see explained as well. And why cannot my two daughters be called "handmaids of the Lord" when they receive communion?

I must say as a member of the laity, I have been made to feel like an idiot and have had my intelligence insulted by the debate on this issue. I recently spoke to two priests of our metropolia about the liturgy, and they told me that I shouldn't speak about it because I wasn't an expert, and I wasn't on the committee. Causa fina est. But I'm no idiot--I have a Ph.D. myself (in philosophy), know some Greek, and can tell when a translation is inaccurate or not, although I usually need to use a grammar and a lexicon.

I also resent very much Fr. David's assertion that "Unfortunately, most proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. " I am a proponent of a masculine spirituality, as are most of my friends, and none of us think this means "putting women down." It is an argument by innuendo.

Finally, I am very disturbed by Fr. David's assertions about the Orthodox. He says "Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband." This was most certainly not the sentiment of the attendees at the recent Orientale Lumen conference. Archbishop Vsevelod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church specifically said that Eastern Catholics can and must serve as a bridge, a bridge between Orthodox and Catholics, a way for the West to learn about Eastern Christianity. We do have a role beyond tending to the current faithful. I dare say we might even wish to evangelize and grow!

I apologize if I have written with any vitriol. I blame the lateness of the hour and the sensitivity of the subject matter. Although I find myself in serious disagreement with Fr. David on many points, I must commend him for engaging those of us who are concerned about the new translation and revision of the liturgy. No one else on the committee has spoken up, but Fr. David has gamely taken the slings and arrows. God bless him.

Dear Brother in Christ,

Glad you like the book. It was an effort and a bit of work, but an enjoyable occupation.

As to inclusive language, I suggest patience for a short while - another book, from another author, is on the way and will discuss that issue at length.

The title of "handmaid" was very much sought after in the early Church, and the Holy Theotokos applied it to herself. So I also fail to grasp what can possibly be wrong with it.


No one can make you feel like an idiot unless you accept that judgement - so don't accept it! Neither ordination to the priesthood nor appointment to a committee can bestow infused knowledge on anyone. To tell you that you should not even speak about the Liturgy because you are not an "expert" (a problematic term in itself) and you are not on "the committee" smacks dangerously of elitism and gnosticism, both of which Father David disavows.

There are several negative jokes about committees - you probably know some of them yourself. A perennial favorite is the observation that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee!

The claim that masculine spirituality means putting women down has no place in a serious discussion. Are we supposed to venerate only feminine saints?

Bishop Kallistos, who is no mean Orthodox theologian and enjoys the respect of much of the Orthodox world, has also said and written that the Greek-Catholics have a legitimate place and work to do in the encounter between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Father David seems to have taken the negative thinking of some Orthodox as speaking for the whole of Orthodoxy.

Father David truly deserves recognition for engaging with the critics - one wonders where the remaining members of the committee are hiding.

Again, thanks for your compliment; I'm glad you like the book.

with every blessing,

Archimandrite Serge

I'm thankful for the two previous comments and have often wondered why the prevailing opinion seems to be that we are not a bridge between East and West. I suppose if two groups are stubborn enough nothing will assist them to safety.

I suspect the translation committees very insularity ("secrecy") has been its own worst weekness. One might successfully resist arrogance when one also isolates oneself but it is very difficult. But how does one lead if one ignores those he is to lead. How would a shepherd lead if he doesn't know his own sheep?

CDL

Dear Carson,

The experience of the late unlamented USSR bears you out. The Soviets did everything possible to isolate their people from the rest of the world, and succeeded to a significant extent. The result was that the USSR fell drastically behind in such areas of life as scientific achievement.

The very idea of saying, unrequested, "I know better than you do and therefore I shall decide what is good for you" does not readily succeed these days - even when it is solicited (as one does on asking one's physician for a diagnosis), one retains the right to seek a second opinion from another professional in the field.

Nowadays people tend to tolerate such chutzpah only from computer gurus, plumbers and auto mechanics.

Serge Keleher

Very Funny and oh so true!!! :rolleyes:

Dear Father Archimandrite Serge,

Welcome to our forum!
It is an honor to have you here.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Again, the statement that I am the responsible party for the "horizontal inclusive language" in the text is purely the Administrator's fantasy. Let me say it more plainly, it's not how it happened. I am in favor of some "horizontal inclusive language," but would prefer "Lover of Humankind," to "who loves us all." Of course, since I promised confidentiality in the proceedings, this will give a warrant for anyone to hold me responsible for whatever they think I should be held responsible for.

Fr. David

I will continue to disagree with Father David about him being the primary originator of both the use of gender neutral language and the revisions that take the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy away from the Ruthenian recension. I have often had occasion these past 10+ years to discuss the proposed new texts with many of our clergy whom I count as friends, including several members of the commission. It was clear from these discussions over many years that Father David was the originator of almost all of the changes. It was also clear that Father David approached the use of gender neutral inclusive language as something obvious and necessary. We can see some of this confirmed by Father David�s own statements in these discussions over the past few years. He has at least once expressed surprise that anyone would question the use of gender neutral inclusive language.

Again I will iterate that the grammatical construction of "Lover of..." ANY kind relegates said Lover to the adjunctive status of modifyer or verbal adornment for the Beloved.

That is lousy theology.

Forget the inclusivity or lack thereof in this grammatical mode of translation. It is the theology and the mystagogy that is at stake here.

It is the I AM who calls the beloved that should be the initiator of the action of calling, with the beloved responding.

That cannot happen in the particular grammar of adornment for the Beloved that you prefer here.

The Beloved is liturgically NEVER humankind!!

The Beloved in the Liturgy must ALWAYS be the Bridegroom, and "Lover of MANKIND" destroys the true liturgical symmetry of the entire liturgy.

It closes with a whimper that which should close with a Glory! to the One who loveth all!!

Now that is a grammatical charge, a theological charge and thereby one that can be dealt with in its objective reality rather than by subjective assertion or "preference"!!

I'd like to see you address it substantially.

Eli

I'm confused - (a) certainly Christ is referred to as the Bridegroom; are you also saying that only Christ can be called Beloved? and (b) Are you suggesting that "the One who loveth (or loves?) all" would be an appropriate translation of philanthropos, and that the problem is not the omission of "man", but the use of "lover"?

In puzzlement,
Jeff

I have said that the difficulty in this particular phrase in the context of the Divine Liturgy is theological not genderific.

I have said quite strongly that the --Subject--Actor--Master--Lord--Beloved--Christ--God-- should not --at this point in the Liturgy-- become an adjunctive to the beloved, but should be the ONE who calls to us and to whom we can reply in faith and love:

"We thank you, -Master [Beloved] who loveth mankind-, Benefactor of our souls, for having today made us worthy of your heavenly and immortal mysteries. Make straight our paths, establish us in your fear, guard our life...etc."

Eli

Φιλανθρωποσ - This term is discussed relatively briefly in the present book, because as a footnote (16 on p. 56, to be precise) in the book indicates, I devoted about six pages to this term in an article in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Stuides in 1998 - please read that article if you wish the fuller discussion, including the Biblical background of this word. The desire for "inclusive language" adds to the difficulty of translation of this and other important terms.

Just who took the decision to use "inclusive language" in the draft is not a question which particularly interests me - the ideas, not the persons, are what count. I deplore the decision, regardless of whether it was made by my own brother (which is most unlikely, since he is a lawyer in Connecticut who is probably unaware of the existence both of the draft and of my book!) or by someone whom I have never heard of.

Serge Keleher

Taft, Lash, Samra, Petras and Keleher make for a probable powerhouse of an edition, but I still don't have the budget to order research materials at will.

Could you summarize your comments for us here if it is possible to do so without loosing important meaning?

Eli

I doubt it, to be honest. I tend to write fairly closely. Φιλανθρωπια is a classical Greek word, found in both Xenophon and Plato, but also in the Old Testament (LXX, of course) and the New Testament. Go through the references and it becomes clear that this is a regal virtue. It progresses to become a divine virtue, and finally a Messianic virtue. Father Taft discusses it in at least two separate articles. Adrian Fortescue noticed that Saint John Chrysostom was particularly fond of this expression.

Relevant here is a line from Chesterton: Saint Francis was a lover of God and he was really and truly a lover of men, possibly a much rarer mystical vocation . . . Saint Francis did not love humanity, but men; he did not love Christianity but Christ.

But unless you are quite satisfied look up the article and trace my references. I'm afraid there is no substitute for that process.

Serge Keleher

Certainly. I understand. But this does confirm some of what I imagined that you've done with the word or title or as you say royal virtue, and I can wait a bit now for my public library's ILL to get me the article or a copy of it.

I am not sure that anything that you've said in the article would change my mind about the particular place in the Divine Liturgy that is of concern to me. That's what I was looking to see.

I have no real difficulty with an Akathistos built around Lover of Man or other uses of the word translated into this phrase, or a similar Lover of Mankind or Humankind in other prayer settings as it might seem fit.

But I certainly do cringe when addressing the Master of us all in those final moments of the liturgy and in that particular prayer, using it outside of its acceptable upper-case, honorific form of address.

I do much appreciate your use of Chesterton in this context as well!!

Thank you.

Eli

Anyone whose budget does not allow him to spend unlimited amounts on research materials has my complete sympathy - I'm not Mr. Moneybags myself, and I have every reason to be grateful to two particularly good libraries in Dublin.

But there is an additional trick to keep in mind. Make friends with the librarians, and try to obtain whatever you need via Inter-Library Loan. This often works, and can save you serious money.

My own latest book is probably not yet in the sort of libraries which would do that, unfortunately for those who want to read it!

Serge Keleher

I reiterate that I was not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears in the latest working documents of the IELC. This is my last word on the subject, I am not lying, but I will not respond further on this subject.

I am posting a new version of my review of Fr. Serge's book. It is still incomplete, though I hope to finish in the next few days. In this format, footnotes are lost, but are available on my web site, www.davidpetras.com. [davidpetras.com.]

"Contents copyright � 2006. All rights reserved."

I am copyrighting the review, as some recommended to me in private messages. However, certainly on this site, there are no restrictions, and whatever I say can be quoted for the sake of comment. This is just for the sake of outside publication.

Serge Keleher, Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I. The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. (Pittsburgh: Stauropegion Press, 2006). 280 pp. Plus Appendix.

Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work.

It should be noted, before beginning, that the October 2004 draft is not the most current. Another draft was issued June 4, 2005, which will modify some of Fr. Keleher�s remarks.

Chapter 1 is an apologia (defense) of the author�s right to critique the translation. I certainly would not deny him that right. He admits (p. 11) that the original Ruthenian Recension (by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Rome, 1941, in Church Slavonic, but not cited in this chapter, he refers to the translation of that text by the Pittsburgh Metropolia in 1964/65)) can be revised, but accurately states the question of whether the Proposed Draft is an appropriate revision (p. 12) One might ask the further question whether his critique meets the principles of constructive or destructive criticism. On p. 10, he quotes Archbishop Quinn, who defines destructive criticism as �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority.� (P. 10)

Chapter 2 is entitled �The Controversy and its Historical Setting. This chapter contains much valuable information. In regard to the interchange between Bishop Daniel Ivancho and the Oriental Congregation in 1953, the Congregation granted part of what the Bishop asked for, precisely because these particular practices were not latinizations, except for the very troublesome consumation of the gifts during the hymn, �May our mouth be filled... � This has been corrected in the newest proposal. The Congregation granted him only what he asked for - a temporary dispensation, though no time limit is mandated. In reality, the only really important issue remaining from this is the question of when the Royal Doors should be opened and closed. We will return to this question.

Fr. Keleher then tells the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. I was a participant in that story. Fr. Keleher sees it as the promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon, and indeed, that was the goal of Bishop Emil, depending on his advisors, chiefly Fr. Eugene Chromoga and Fr. Victor Herberth. At the time, I was a young priest, recently returned from studies in Rome. This also was my vision. One problem of interpretation ever since, however, is the fact that Bishop Emil did promulgate it in what was then labeled as a �pastoral fashion.� Most of the litanies were made optional, that is, they retained the same status as previous systems. Even in the primitive days, before and after the 1941 Roman recension, priests felt obliged by the law to say all the litanies, only they did them silently. Sometimes, as at the small litanies, the faithful would chant the responses, �Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; To you, O Lord. Amen.� It is difficult for us today to understand the legalistic mentality of those times. Today, if litanies are not said, they are not said, even silently. The net result was that, even if the 1986 promulgation of the Ruthenian recension - and it was seen as such - did not make the recitation of the litanies �facultative,� it nonetheless had the positive effect of making more of the litanies public than Bishop Emil�s 1970 promulgation.

It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension. On p. 40, he moves from history to speculation. He quotes Fr. Lambert Beauduin to say that one must experience a Liturgy before one can reform it. This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it. Of course, Lambert Beauduin was not referring to the 1941 Liturgicon, nor probably to any discrete written text. To �experience a Liturgy� would certainly mean to participate in it and in the ways it brings us to God. One could truly experience the Byzantine Divine Liturgy - even the 1941 version of it - without some of the litanies - that is, the prayers, the hymns, the rubrics, the incense, the colors and light, the word of God and the taste of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Here I must digress a bit from the review of his book, and I apologize. One of the problems I see from this whole affair is that the claim is being made that nothing else but the literal execution of a certain written text will suffice. This is, then, a textual problem, and one that leads to different conclusions depending on the premises from which you begin. Meditate on this: can you experience a human meal, the organic foodstuffs, the table conversation, the refreshment of the body, without having dessert? Can one come to faith in the resurrection of Christ without reading the Lukan account? One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the antiphons and, indeed, I have seen that happen many times. Yes, there is a problem in what you can omit and what must be there, but we can discern this, for that is why we are human beings inspired by God. We can make these kinds of decisions. The Divine Liturgy is for us, we are not for the Divine Liturgy. We might even be able to fulfill the vocation of the Church to be faithful to our Eastern heritage without saying the two small litanies. We are not slaves of the text to that degree.

Fr. Keleher ends the chapter on history with a long quotation from Fr. Taft.(pages 41-45). The quotation is solid and beautiful. It rings quite true and mentions a number of important Eastern litrurgical practices that must be experienced for it to be true and authentic. In chapter 6, pp. 131-133, Fr. Keleher lists what he likes about the 2004 draft. This list is small, but it touches on some of the points made by Fr. Taft. The basic disagreement remains - I think that the Liturgy as envisioned by the Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does respond to Fr. Taft�s challenge, finally, and even in details. The problem is that it does not meet Fr. Keleher�s criteria.

Chapter 3 deals with �the process of secrecy.� No one likes to be kept in darkness about a process that is going on, and this has been the case with the deliberations of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission for about ten years now. Perhaps he is right and there has been too much secrecy. It was the method decided upon in order to encourage the members to greater courage to express their honest opinions. The more cynical might grumble, �to protects their asses.� I did not like working under such secrecy, and more openness might have defused much of the criticism pouring out now. The opinions of the people, though, were not totally ignored. More than half the members of the Commission are pastors, who, it is felt, would be in sympathy with the people�s needs and desires. Though the complaint might be made that this is not adequate, that the people should speak for themselves, nonetheless, it was not therefore completely ignored. At the same time, the tempest that has been raised did teach me a little about human nature and secrecy. In the Roman Church, liturgical reform is carried on from above, the central authority commissions new books, and then they are promulgated to begin on a fixed date. When this occurs, though, there is usually an uproar, but eventually the Church conforms (well, more or less, which proves there is a process of reception). It has been pointed out by some that this doesn�t happen in the Eastern Church, though the Studite reform of the office, the Niconian reforms and the Moghilan reform might indicate otherwise). In each case, though, after a period of reception, the reform itself is accepted as the normative text. Thus, Rome found it difficult to reform the Tridentine reform (the Vatican reform is still in a period of reception).
At the same time, I have learned that if action is not taken from above, nothing will happen. Liturgy is inherently conservative. If people don�t relate to the Liturgy any longer, they usually don�t call for a reform, they just drift away. If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. This was the pattern we have seen in 1965. The Divine Liturgy was translated into English, this was a major reform which changed the liturgical experience of the people decisively for all time. There was an uproar. Eventually, it was accepted, after a fashion, and, now, when the situation is being reviewed, there is another uproar. The point is that if you open the process to all people, nothing will ever be able to be properly addressed.
This is not disrespectful of the people�s position. The Liturgy is for the people, which includes the clergy, who do not cease being a part of the people by their ordination. The reality of the praying Church is that anyone, even with the most rudimentary knowledge of theology, is a part of this praying Church, as St. John Chrysostom so often eloquently witnessed. A problem found in all the story of the Church, but especially today when a business or technological education predominates and very little theological knowledge or formation is given, is that the people do not have a formal knowledge of the Liturgy (while they may well have a very deep experiential knowledge) and are, in truth, ignorant of teleology of the Liturgy or of some of the potential that the Liturgy has to bring them closer to God. If I tell them, �if you hear the presbyteral prayers,� you will understand the Liturgy better, they may say, �what are these �presbyteral prayers.�� If they actually hear them, then they may understand better. I have confidence that people will respond to good liturgy sincerely celebrated.
The fact remain that while many people experience the Liturgy in a healthy way, others do not, nor want their experience to be challenged. Some people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Experts are needed - perhaps not so much to lead us into a new land, but to save us from our own folly. I would hold that some liturgical reform is desperately needed. We no longer live in Niconian Russia - we have experienced the rise of technology, the atomic bomb, the holocaust of the Jews, and, indeed, of many peoples, the devastation of World Wars, we cry to God from our hearts. How can this people be reunited with their God? The Byzantine Church has remained aloof from these problems. In Russia and Greece, the major Byzantine territories, the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular is being resisted - even by the people, who perhaps cry, �do not bring us into contact with these problems, keep it obscure.� We need, however, to experience the mystery of God�s redemption. If the Liturgy is to speak to us, it must be in our language, and it is clear from the very structure of the Liturgy, that when it �goes� into the vernacular, the structure is going to change. This is why you have �pastors� in the church, to help guide the people. Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response to help guide them to God, based on the authentic liturgical experience of our church. They have made the determination that the presbyteral prayers, which especially express the anamnetic aspect of the Liturgy - that is, that we are remembering our Lord Jesus Christ, in our midst, is important and crucial for our age. Fr. Keleher, of course, thinks differently, cf. Chapter 11.
A universal consultation would have precluded any action from the beginning. I feel that a limited consultation might have been profitable, but this was not the path chosen. I can understand from the present reaction why the shepherds are gun-shy. Even so, the process was not elitist or gnostic. When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people. I myself have written a book, which has been printed but not yet released, but which has been public in the newspaper articles. There will also be visual aids. My only regret is that this project is moving so slow that it has given some an opportunity ot condemn the Liturgy before it is even given a hearing.

Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of �Inclusive Language.� I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I�m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean �extreme� - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some �text� in which the Spirit can write clearly. The proceedings of the Liturgy Commission are confidential, so I speak only of myself, and that this is a controversy which has swirled around me and in which I have not taken a leadership position. The commission are not out and out feminists, that is not the issue.
However, in his book, Fr. Keleher has pointed ten instances of discrete horizontal �inclusive language.� I will speak of these only generally. I would first like to note that the letter from the Oriental Congregation recommended some use of horizontal inclusive language, which, I suppose, shows that Rome is not as monolithic as we would suppose. Some have suggested, of course, that the Oriental Congregation is wrong on this point and should conform itself to other dicasteries, but I would guess that this would mean that the other dicasteries could also be wrong. As mentioned, one cannot get into this without �extreme� emotion.
In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term �lover of mankind,� Philanthropos, �mankind� being labeled as a sexist term. This could actually be easily solved, saying simply �Lover of humankind.� It means exactly the same thing, avoids gender exclusivity, adds one syllable, and is not a �neologism,� since it has been around since the sixteenth century, as the Oxford English Dictionary has pointed out. Of course, it is not possible to propose this without �extreme� emotion, and those opposed to inclusive language generally go ballistic at this suggestion. Why? I think because it is an easy fix. They don�t want an easy fix, but to force �feminists � to use more circuitous language that can be more easily ridiculed. �Humankind� then is rejected as bowing to the �feminist agenda.� The critics point out that �loving us all,� is ambiguous, and as much as I am in sympathy with the problem, I think fairly that it is a double standard. �Man� can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it�s always clear from �context.� As clear, I think, from �context,� as �lover of us all.� The divine title philanthropos is particularly a Byzantine problem, and it occurs so frequently. If there is going to be such trouble over the gender problem, I would propose that we simply use �lover of humankind,� and in other cases conform to what has been approved for the Roman Catholic Church in America. It is undoubtedly too late for this suggestion, however.
What should one say about �feminism.� I would certainly hold to a sound theology, which would hold that men and women, as human persons, are equal in dignity and redemption but not in role. In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for �extreme� emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the �text,� the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed. The Pittsburgh Metropolia, nor the Oriental Congregation, nor for that matter the Holy See, has control over the language used in the world. This is the problem that the Church has not adequately faced. The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church�s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church�s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of �text� in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.
There is in the background another problem that has not been addressed. This is related, but getting off-topic a bit, so I�ll just mention it. As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. I think the central spirituality of men is fatherhood, either spiritual or physical. The role of a father is to bring out the best in the potentiality of his children. In regard to physical children, sometimes fathers abuse this by forcing their own image on them. Fathers frequently do not know how to relate to their daughters or their wives, or how to bring out their best potential. I tell my seminarians over and over again, if the church says that the priesthood is a male role, then you must be a spiritual father to the women under your pastoral care. You must bring out their best spiritual potential, not put them down, but men often do not know how to do this. Our culture does not teach this. The challenge to priests and fathers in these days is unbelievably high pressure, so it is no wonder that men sometimes �crack,� and become abusers.

Chapter 5. �The Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father John Chrysostom.� The author first expects full information and responsibility for a text that was not intended for general circulation, and which he has made available on his own cognizance. To expect full responsibility for a text intended only for interior circulation certainly requires a good deal of chutzpah. Information and formation on this new text is being made available (cf. above) to the priests and faithful of the Metropolia. Unfortunately, we do not have a branch office in Dublin. [p. 71, the Exarchate was established in 1924, not 1925.]
Most of chapter 5 consists of quotations from various documents: the commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, by Neophytos Edelby; other commentaries by Victor Pospishil and Ignatius Dick; the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996, and others. Most of the material is to buttress his thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as little as possible. For Keleher, as applied to the Ruthenian Liturgy, this would mean following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though he does allow for occasional exceptions. One cannot disagree with these documents, and I would reaffirm the principle of fidelity to our Eastern heritage. Since the Eastern Church is mostly Orthodox, that would include a fidelity also to Orthodox principles of Liturgy. This would be a given, and I would probably extol the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik even more than Keleher as a magnificent work of scholarship, a jewel of Byzantine liturgical history, and an accomplishment which cannot be given enough praise. Indeed, in my priesthood, I have striven to make it my ultimate model, and to eliminate all latinizations from Ruthenian practice. I have not always been successful, and the most serious latinization in my opinion is the use of pre-cut particles rather than the comminution of the ahnec (lamb) for Holy Communion. I do not hold with Fr. Keleher, however, that fidelity to the 1941 Sluzhebnik necessarily includes reciting all the litanies.
The next problem I would address is that of ecumenism. In general, the See of Rome wants us to be as faithful as possible to our Eastern heritage, so that the Orthodox will not be scandalized by latinizations. Again, I have no difficulty in fidelity to Orthodoxy, but since becoming actively involved with the official dialogue (the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation) since 1983, I have acquired a new sensitivity to our relationships with the Orthodox Churches. On the ecumenical level, the method of uniatism to unite our two churches has been disavowed. This means, certainly, no piecemeal unions with parts of Eastern Churches and no proselytism. It does not mean that the Eastern Churches in union with Rome must cease to exist, nor, and this is important, cease to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of their own faithful. The original vision of Rome saw us as a tool to unity, as a bridge to Orthodoxy, but the �bridge theory� has fallen with the disavowal of uniatism, if, indeed, it could have ever been effective with the bulk of the Orthodox Church. There is, of course, a variety of opinions about the Eastern Catholic Churches among the Orthodox, and all of these opinions are more or less negative. The most negative is that we Eastern Catholics are a betrayal of Orthodoxy, an abomination upon the face of the earth, and that any attempt to look like Orthodox is the tool of proselytism on our part. We should simply become the Roman Catholics that we are. Other more moderate Orthodox are much more realistic. They know that the present-day �Uniates� are not the ones who betrayed Orthodoxy, and they look forward to our return to Orthodoxy. The first group, naturally, would be totally uninterested as to what we do liturgically, its all a sham, Roman Catholicism in Orthodox clothing. The second group are often interested in the liturgical life of our churches, but it would never form a motivation for their reunion with Rome. So this vision, that if we are good and faithful to our Orthodox heritage, we will foster reunion, is completely baseless. To put it in common language, �it ain�t gonna happen.��
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody�s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don�t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions. We also have the advantage of excellent scholarship on liturgical matters, which can be used for our advantage. My conclusion is that the most Orthodox thing we can do is act for our own spiritual welfare. However, what it seems to me is that there are some who want to take away our independence and enslave it to a vacuous and ineffective ecumenical program. By not allowing for our own dignity, they make us the ultimate �uniates,� a self-proclaimed tool to try to win over the Orthodox.
Father Keleher then turns his attention (pages 117-127) to a number of discrete issues: the introduction of the Anaphora of St. James, the public recitation of the Anaphora, pontifical Liturgies, concelebrations, extraordinary ministers of Communion, liturgical and street dress of Eastern clerics. Since little of this has to do with the text of what he calls the �proposed recasting,� and despite the temptation to a liturgiologist to comment at length on each point, I will skip to Chapter 7. His comments on reciting the Anaphora aloud are, of course, relevant, but I will return to that in my comments on chapter 11. I have already mentioned that we disagree on the stage of the process of the �recasting, � and his positive comments in chapter 6.

Chapter 7 is quite brief, and calls for the restoration, as least, of the full Third Antiphon as found in the textus receptus. The 1941 Sluzhebnik, intended for the use of the priest and deacon, does not include the texts of the Antiphons, so this is a problem for more recent editions intended for people�s and cantor�s use. The disagreement between the author and the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission working draft is obvious, and I have no subtle background to add.
Chapter 8 then turns to a more minute examination of the working draft. Chapter 8 deals with problems of rubrics and chapter 9 with problems of text.
In chapter 8, a short philosophical discussion of the lack of need for absolute uniformity is concluded with the observation that Bishop Nicholas (Elko) had a �campaign� against the Ordo celebrationis. He then turns his attention to some of these details, and I follow his enumeration.
1) deals with the question of the opening and closing of the Royal Doors. In general, the Greek Church opens the Royal Door for the Divine Liturgy, while the Slavs keep them closed except when you have to go in and out of them. In 1953, the Oriental Congregation gave Bishop Daniel (Ivancho) a temporary reprieve from the Slav practice. This is not a question of �latinization,� since the Roman liturgical worship space has no doors between the holy table (altar) and the congregation. However, the Liturgy Commission and the Council of Hierarchs has extended this �reprieve,� on the basis that it is a genuine Byzantine usage (albeit Greek) and the �zeitgeist� is more generally for openness. I tend to think that keeping the celebration behind closed doors is more of a clericalization than shutting the doors, though waiting until the Little Entrance to open the doors would not be too obtrusive.
2) requires no comment. 3) introduces the issue that the working draft had more elaborated rubrics and titles for sections of the Liturgy, as, for example, �Great Synapte.� The titles were added only to indicate more clearly the structure of the Liturgy. Since they have no effect on the celebration whatsoever, and would probably be welcome in the people�s book, I can ascertain no issue here. (Cf. Also 11)The original rubrics were very jejune. I don�t think this was for the cause of more freedom in rubrics, but to keep the books smaller. The Liturgy Commission felt that today the rubrics need to be spelled out in more detail, not to restrict the celebrants, but to help them know what to do. The deacon is, at any rate, going to go to his �usual place.� This just spells it out. This is probably a partial reason why an ordo celebrationis was published in 1944.
4) was dealt with under the antiphons section. 5) the response should be reintroduced. Readers usually respond, �And to your spirit,� anyhow.
6) This incensation honors the gospel, about to be read. In the Liturgies, incensations have tended towards uniformity, always incensing everything, as at the beginning of the service as a sign of purification. This was a conscious decision to focus the incensation on the gospel itself, which are words written in a book. They do not stay in the book, but are proclaimed aloud for the hearing of the people. Therefore, those who hear the word are also censed.
7) to 10) deal with the Great Entrance. The rubrics as written here reflect more common practices today. I will not quibble about these points, but I see no major theological issue here. Certainly, to carry the discos on the head is no longer common practice, though I hear some are trying to restore it. I follow my teachers� opinion here, that the purpose of this was to balance the diskos, which in Haghia Sophia could be huge. You can still see examples of these very large diskoses in Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, though I have also seen very large diskoses in use in the present-day Russian Church.
[The proper term for this is �diskos,� or �discos,� not �diskarion..� The author here seems influenced by the Greek suffix �-ion� indicating a �thing,� such as �poterion,� �adrinking thing,� or epitrachilion,� a �thing around the neck,� or �phelonion,� etc. However, here the word model is rather �asteriskos,� the �little star,� placed over the bread in the �diskos,� which is not an �asteriscarion.� I apologize for going off-topic, but the term bothers me.]
11) -12). The author shows here that he understands the discussion concerning the title of the prayer. He then calls it the �correct� title. I do not want to quibble about this, for it is certainly the traditional title. However, there might be sufficient reason to modify this if it helps the celebrant and/or people understand the intent of the prayer, �bring us to your holy altar, enable us to offer gifts and spiritual sacrifices ... � A similar comment might be made about the profession of faith. Again, the placement of the title does not affect the celebration in any way, but might help us to see that this is indeed a liturgical unit, that our faith is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a unity in love.
13) The placing of the words, �The doors! The doors!� in brackets was done because it was felt it was an archaism. Many priests omit the words even without brackets. I myself say these words, as a reminder that we now enter the point of the ancient disciplina arcana. However, the Commission felt differently, and even I do not discern a major theological/ecumenical issue here.
14) The commemoration of the various classes of saints and of the Theotokos is a commemoration of the dead. The Theotokos died, though now she is glorified in heaven. The Divine Liturgy is offered for the Theotokos and all saints, for they are saved by virtue of our Lord�s death on the Cross and resurrection, though, from our perspective, this is already an accomplished fact. Incensation is always done for the deceased, as evidenced by the deacon�s continuing the incensation at this point, �and he mentions the names of the departed for whom he wishes to pray.�
15) The aitesis before the Our Father may be prayed in its entirety. This is an option. The author recommends retaining both instances of the aitesis (after the Great Entrance and before the Our Father,) though not making a great point of it, as an opportunity for using different languages. Dual language litanies, however, are quite rare, and if done, there are numerous other ways to accomodate them. Though I do not recommend this, I recently attended a Greek Liturgy where the shorter phrases were repeated in both English and Greek. The first aitesis is suppressed as Fr. Taft recommended. At any rate, the question posed is peripheral, since if the Liturgy were to be celebrated in Church Slavonic, there would be no translation issues.
16) seems to be a very trivial point. 17) criticizes the working draft for placing the rubric after the Oir Father rather than before. Of course, rubrical inversions like this occur, as, for example, the rubric for the deacon to say �Lord, have mercy,� at each incision of the ahnec at the Rite of Preparation, given only after the priest has done the incisions! Here it is the problem of where to place a rubric when there are two possibilities. Maybe it would have been better to place it earlier, but, at any rate, one reads the rubrics before the Liturgy is celebrated. If one celebrates reading the rubrics as you go along, it will be a very long celebration indeed.
18) It is now the common practice in the Pittsburgh Metropolia for the priest and people to say the Prayer before Communion together before the priest partakes. The period of silence alluded to here is not as long as Fr. Keleher makes it out to be. That �the Byzantine Liturgy does not appreciate silent periods,� (page 158) is a generalization. Certainly during the Great Entrance of the Presanctified a silent period is prescribed, and there is rarely a problem at this point of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
19) The deacon does not receive before the priest, but the priest gives the deacon the Holy Body before taking it himself, as he only has two hands. (20) seems to be a trivial complaint.
21) In common practice, the particles are pre-cut and there is no comminution. I would like to see the restoration of the distribution of Communion from the ahnec (lamb), in fulfillment of the Holy Apostle Paul�s words, �Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:17)� The author here seems to want to complicate the situation, though we elsewhere get chided for expanding rubrics. The author also seems to want the rubrics for the transfer of the gifts expanded (22), though there are few practical difficulties here. In regard to footnote 98, page 162, most priests leave the spoon in the chalice, and I have never seen it �fly out,� which could as easily happen during the distribution of Communion!
23) The use of variant Ambon Prayers has become very common. What does it accomplish? - a further meditation on the feast or mystery being celebrated. These prayers are certainly found in tradition and have become very popular, not only among Catholic but also the Orthodox. For example, they are found in service books published by the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese of Johnstown, and also by the Holy Theotokos Monastery in North Fort Myers, which cites the Ieraticon of 1997 (Apostolica Diakonia, Athens), pages 138 amd 193 as recommending them.
24) The deacon cannot hold his orarion during the consumation of the gifts. Russian deacons just tie it at the side. This seems a practical solution when Ruthenian deacons wear the longer style oraria.
25) It might be well to eventually restore the antidoron. Certainly, nothing prevents a priest from doing this, and very often bread is dtributed in the Ruthenian Church for mirovanije, which, of course, properly comes from the office. 26) seems to raise the question of whether it is appropriate to sing �eternal memory,� after a Divine Liturgy. In parochial life, it is certainly done frequently, whether or not there is a rubric.
Unfortunately, Fr. Keleher�s conclusions do not follow from his text. That the rubrics do not always follow exactly what is found in Church Slavonic or the Ordo celebrationis is no indication whatsoever that they were not given warranted attention. If they had been rewritten �in a scientific way,� as the author suggests, would he then make the same objection, that the original rubrics were not attended to? In any case, for centuries, we have lived with rubrics that are very sparse, and sometimes even conflicting (the author points out that there is no rubric to close the Royal Doors after the Great Entrance in Niconian and Niconian influenced editions, footnote 2, p. 141), but this has not led to chaos, as he rather casually opines.

Once again, Father David has given us an example of rapid response. This time, though, I can't respond in kind, because it's the weekend and I have responsibilities here that I cannot dodge.

Besides, it appears that this also is not Father David's absolutely final version. So what I hope to do (like on Monday or thereabouts) is to discuss a few of his major themes and offer my thoughts on them.

I do notice that Father David has adopted the use of the term "chutzpah" - a warm welcome to Yiddishkeit! A few decades ago there was a pleasant book called The Joys of Yiddish;
anyone who can find a copy will probably think it's fun reading - especially if you're from around New York.

Meanwhile, Gut Shabbas and a good Sunday to everyone.

Serge Keleher

Thank you, Father Serge, for a very important and timely work. Thank you also to the priests who funded the printing and distribution of your book. Your impressive scholarship will be helpful to us to stop the Petras revision of the Divine Liturgy and to undo the damage the mandated revisions have done in Parma, Passaic and Van Nuys. Once Bishop Pataki finally retires we pray that the whole liberal reform effort will collapse.

Did anyone watch the coverage of the Roman Catholic bishops June meeting in Los Angeles? Bishop after bishop got up to thank the representative of the reformed ICEL to thank him for removing the �secular feminist agenda� from the translations. Our bishops should listen to this wisdom and stop this revisionist agenda.

I put together a list of some of the mistakes in the Petras / IELC translation from Father Serge�s chapter on inclusive language:

1. �Fathers and brothers� becomes �clergy and monastics.� Absurd.

2. In the prayer of the First Antiphon �Whose love is beyond expression� becomes �loving us beyond all expression�. The two phrases do not mean the same thing.

3. In the Prayer of the Third Antiphon �For You, O God, are gracious and You love mankind� becomes �For you, O Christ our God, are good and you love us all.� �Mankind� is inclusive. �Us all� is exclusive.

4. �Sons of God� in the Beatitudes becomes �children of God.� �Sons of God� conveys and inheritance that is deeper than does �children of God.�

5. In the Prayer of the Trisagion �Who � created man to Your own image and likeness� becomes �You created us in your own image and likeness.� This excludes all men who are not present, from Adam until the Second Coming.

6. �O gracious Master� becomes �Loving Master� in the prayer before the Gospel. This should really be something like �O Master who loves mankind, infuse in our hears the spotless light of Your divine wisdom�.�

7. �For all our brethren in Christ� becomes for all our �brothers and sisters in Christ.�

8. �For you are a merciful and gracious God� becomes �For you are a merciful and loving God� in the Prayer of the first Litany after the Gospel. This really should be something like �For you are a merciful God who loves mankind.�

9. In the prayer concluding the litany for the deceased �As a good and gracious God� becomes �As a good and loving God�. This really should be something like �As a God who is good and loves mankind�.�

10. In the Second Prayer of the Faithful �O gracious lover of mankind� becomes �O good and loving God.� This is obviously wrong.

11. In the Symbol of Faith the inclusive �Who for us men and for our salvation� is replaced with the exclusive �Who for us and our salvation.� Rome has condemned this. Why does Father David reject Vatican teaching?

12. In the Communion formula for women �handmaid of God� is omitted. It should be restored.

13 �In the dismissal �for He is gracious and loves mankind� becomes �for Christ is good and loves us all.� This mistake has already been much discussed.

14. In the final Ecphonesis of the Polychronion �to all our fathers and brothers� becomes �to our brothers and sisters.� Duh!

One wonders if anyone on the commission has heard of the Vatican directive �Liturgiam Authenticam?� Maybe someone on this forum can print copies from the Vatican website and send them to our bishops and the members of our liturgical commission?

Does anyone actually believe that parishes are going to pay $60 for each of the new Revised Liturgicions and $45 for each of the new pew books? Follow the money. Someone is going to make a killing from the sale of these new books if we cannot stop it.

The Revised Liturgy must be fully rejected now so that it never appears again.

When will we see the official explanation and justification of the liturgical reforms?

Father David wrote: On p. 10, he quotes Archbishop Quinn, who defines destructive criticism as �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority.� (P. 10)

Father Serge�s comments are uniting, temperate, collaborative, open to a larger vision for all our Churches and respectful for authority.

Father David�s comments are the ones that are divisive, intemperate, completive and blind to the larger vision. They are certainly without reverence to Vatican authority.

Father David wrote: It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension.

There is no �latest effort to promulgate the Ruthenian recension�. The revision will not promulgate the Ruthenian recension. It will only promulgate Father David�s agenda for �progress� in the Liturgy. He picked this up at Notre Dame when it was at is most wacky.

Father David wrote: This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it.

A very good claim, too! How can you revise something you don�t know?

Father David wrote: One of the problems I see from this whole affair is that the claim is being made that nothing else but the literal execution of a certain written text will suffice. This is, then, a textual problem, and one that leads to different conclusions depending on the premises from which you begin.

Father David�s premise is wrong. It is not merely a �textual problem.� It�s clear that he does not understand the Ruthenian recension or even the Liturgy itself if he reduces it mere text.

Father David wrote: The basic disagreement remains - I think that the Liturgy as envisioned by the Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does respond to Fr. Taft�s challenge, finally, and even in details.

The Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does not envision what Father David proposes. If they did it would have been promulgated years ago. Bishop Andrew Pataki is the only bishop who actually supports the Reform. Anyone who asks Metropolitan Basil or Bishop William why they are considering promulgating the Liturgy are not told �because it is our vision for the Church�. They are told �because Father David has worked so hard for so long.� Bishop John has been giving parish after parish a blessing to return to the red book.

Note that there has not been one hierarchical pastoral letter on the need to reform the Divine Liturgy.

Father David wrote: The opinions of the people, though, were not totally ignored. More than half the members of the Commission are pastors, who, it is felt, would be in sympathy with the people�s needs and desires.

Sure they were ignored. Even the clergy were ignored. The priests of Pittsburgh, Parma and Van Nuys saw the revisions for the very first time when the �final version of October 2004� was given to them in May of 2005. The priests of Passaic have still not been given a copy of this and had to obtain their copies from priests in other eparchies. Father David should not pretend otherwise.

Father David wrote: At the same time, I have learned that if action is not taken from above, nothing will happen. Liturgy is inherently conservative. If people don�t relate to the Liturgy any longer, they usually don�t call for a reform, they just drift away.

What is needed is not reform. What is needed is to finally implement the Ordo and the 1942 Liturgy.

If Father David wants to see people running away he should visit parishes that follow his reforms.

Father David wrote: If I tell them, �if you hear the presbyteral prayers,� you will understand the Liturgy better, they may say, �what are these �presbyteral prayers.�� If they actually hear them, then they may understand better. I have confidence that people will respond to good liturgy sincerely celebrated.

Again, Father David should visit parishes that follow his reforms. They are quickly becoming empty.

The idea that the liturgy is a place primarily for getting people to understand rather than to worship is wrong.

Father David wrote: If the Liturgy is to speak to us, it must be in our language, and it is clear from the very structure of the Liturgy, that when it �goes� into the vernacular, the structure is going to change.

We�ve had the vernacular now for over 40 years. No one is arguing against it. The use of the vernacular does not mean that the structure of the Liturgy is going to change.

Father David wrote: Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response to help guide them to God, based on the authentic liturgical experience of our church.

No. One shepherd has been bullying the other three to give in to your reforms. That is the entire extent of it.

Father David wrote: Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of �Inclusive Language.� I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I�m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean �extreme� - emotion.

Father David has been extremely emotional in his demand for inclusive language. He�s been using it for at least 20 years (assuming approbation where there was none). Doe he really expect to �table this discussion� and then have us accept his efforts to force inclusive language? The priests and people are really not that dumb.

Father David wrote: I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point.

Translation: �I don�t agree with Liturgiam Authenticam so I�m going to pretend that it does not exist and say I�m waiting for the Church to grow into my position.�

Father David wrote: I would first like to note that the letter from the Oriental Congregation recommended some use of horizontal inclusive language, which, I suppose, shows that Rome is not as monolithic as we would suppose.

Can Father David prove this? Until he shows us the letter it is merely his speculation.

It is likely that if is true the recommendation came before the definitive Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated. It is also likely it came from Taft, who openly disagrees with the Vatican on the use of inclusive language.

Father David wrote: In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often.

We do say this often! This is what the term �lover of mankind� means. Perhaps Father David needs to take English 101?

Father David wrote: �Man� can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it�s always clear from �context.�

Rome has said that �man� is the most inclusive term in the English language for anthropos. Father David is wrong.

Father David wrote: As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of �text� in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not.

False. Ministers on the grass roots are more and more returning to authentic liturgy and translations. The liberalism of the 1970s and 1980s has been soundly rejected. Father David should not impose it on our church. The Church has moved on from that failed experiment. Father David should not remain stuck in the 1970s.

Father David wrote: Most of chapter 5 consists of quotations from various documents: the commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, by Neophytos Edelby; other commentaries by Victor Pospishil and Ignatius Dick; the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996, and others. Most of the material is to buttress his thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as little as possible.

The absence of supportive documentation from these documents in Father David�s writings is notable.

The thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be as faithful to our traditions as is possible is not merely Father Serge�s opinion. It is a continuing directive from Rome. One that Father David appears to reject.

Father David wrote: The most negative is that we Eastern Catholics are a betrayal of Orthodoxy, an abomination upon the face of the earth, and that any attempt to look like Orthodox is the tool of proselytism on our part. We should simply become the Roman Catholics that we are.

Yes, the revised Liturgy is most certainly a betrayal of Orthodoxy. It is the product of a Roman Catholic mind. The Orthodox are right to hold us in contempt when we do such injustice to the Liturgy.

One could go on and on. More later.

Glory to God! It is not every day that one sees a direct intervention from the heavenly Kingdom in such discourse. But the Saints have used other methods of communication, so it is not for me to complain if one of them chooses to express himself on the Internet - and Blessed Theodore, after all, seems to have been responsible for a substantial reprint and distribution of the 1941 Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in the Eparchy of Mukachiv.

On another matter: Father David articulates what he considers a strong need for the Liturgy to stress that God saves both men and women. Why, then, does και παντων και πασων [and all men and women] become "And remember all your people" in the final version of October 2004, page 28, line 18?

[
Serge Keleher

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Is there any complete text (with rubrics, etc.) online of this new translation?

--Mark Therrien

Fr. David says that the liturgy has been revised since the October 2004 version. I have been told that I must accept this liturgy because it is approved by Rome. But which version has been approved? What exactly was approved? If the version is to-be-accepted because of this approval, how could it be changed?

Oh, is that what the Greek says? The GOA renders it "And all Your people". I have a ROCA text with "And each and every one". The OCA has it "And all mankind". A poster some years ago opined that our 1965 translation "And remember all your people" was an example of gender-neutral inclusive language - because it should be something like "mankind".

Father Serge,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

After receiving your book for the meager price of a few chocolates (I must tell you that I believe I got the sweeter end of the deal :p ) I eagerly "consumed" its contents in less than 24 hours. Granted, this will probably be the first of several readings for me (especially the parts pertaining to the actual contents of the translation, since I lack a command of liturgical languages). But I have to say that I believe that your labors here constitute a true GIFT for all who are interested in the future of Byzantine/Orthodox Catholicism in the English-speaking world - far beyond just the Metropolia of Pittsburgh!

I would even go so far as to say that your work potentially represents the beginnings of an Orthodox Catholic manifesto for all those who are eager for a return to orthodoxia and orthodopraxis within our respective Greek-Catholic jurisdictions. You certainly touch upon issues that pertain to our survival as a Church, and while the principles that form the basis of this work are drawn from conciliar, magisterial and scholarly sources readily available to all, your work makes it tragically clear that they have not as of yet been embraced by all.

The level of secrecy surrounding the translation work (a fact that, thankfully, Father David now also laments) has undermined what could have been a very fruitful dialogue, not only between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches of the English-speaking, but between also the laity (those of us who intone the "Amen!" within the worship) and the hierarchy. As you mention in your book, this contravenes both precedent and good pastoral practice, and can actually cause those of us who would otherwise be receptive to change to question motives and loyalties. Already we have seen such comments on this forum, with some threatening to leave as a result.

Unwarranted secrecy poisons natural relations in both organizational and family systems. It is partly based on a principle of physics - nature abhors a vaccuum. Where secrecy abounds, people will naturally fill the void with wild speculations and anxieties. What would have been initially experienced as "organic" change becomes "shock" change - unsettling and potentially destructive in any context/system. Our Metropolia's history is full of tragic separations and shocks to our family system - we do not need to be unsettled anymore than we already are - we need to be strengthened. Authentic leadership often involves the management of the process of change and care for those who are most affected by it. The recent history in the Eparchy of Passaic demonstrates the destructive power of such "shock change" with the mishandling of parish closings in CT and FL. When the shepherd strikes the sheep, the flock will scatter. To whom shall they go?

Were this liturgy to be simply "dropped" down from on high one Sunday morning, I fear it would create a similar reaction in the sense that we would probably lose members. I am sure that plans were in place for a gradual implementation of the changes (sans a security detail), but even then the content of the changes appears to be of the greatest concern, not their implementation.

Coming back to the topic of secrecy, based upon your critique, it appears that secrecy in this instance has created a lackluster - even deficient - product in an ecclesial and scholarly vaccuum. Your book has "opened wide" the doors to open dialogue - one that should have started long ago. My hope is that the liturgical commission suspends the promulgation of the liturgy and in all humility, examines your critique, which is both gracious and compelling. The end result will hopefully not be a thorough defense of the commission's work, but rather its refinement.

In addition, I hope that this text is read by anyone and everyone who has an interest in the future of the Byzantine Church.

Many years!

Gordo

Healthy discussion need not include lack of charity. Some of the comments from posters on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform have been based more in emotion than in logic. I lament the wandering away from the absolute rule of charity and ask posters to stick to a discussion of the issues (passion and discourtesy are not the same thing).

Father David has noted that he is not the originator of the use of inclusive language. Father Serge has noted that it really doesn�t matter whose idea it was. Father Serge has a good point. I will take it a step further. It really does not matter who thought up any of the changes. Each proposed revision can be examined upon merit, together with the larger question of whether it is legitimate for the Ruthenian Church to act solo to revise the Divine Liturgy.

Dear Gordo,
The chocolates are delicious; please accept my thanks. And unlike the book, I have not yet consumed them all! But happy further readings.

My own beloved Bishop has not yet confirmed whether his copy has arrived in the post - but then I've not heard from him since early in the week and he may not be at home base.

By coincidence, I was impressed this evening at watching a televised session of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - it is not that many years since they held their meetings in strictest secrecy. Our exalted commissions could profit from their example.

This reminds me, to a degree, of the trauma over the celibacy issue that began in the late nineteen-twenties. Bishop Basil Takach made the mistake of trying to keep things secret - with the result, of course, that everyone and his maiden aunt knew what was happening and several of the Carpatho-Russian newspapers took gleeful pleasure in publishing the "secret" documents. Had he followed a different policy, he could certainly have eased the trauma - and, who knows, he might even have succeeded in reversing the unwelcome decision. As I have written elsewhere, the "triumph of celibacy" was obtained at an outrageously high price, and turned out to be ephemeral anyway. But the pain and bitterness are still with us.

Many unanswered questions remain, so there is lots more work to be done. If my book has succeeded in breaking the ice and opening an informed discussion, that is a worth-while accomplishment. If it has done more . . . well, we must wait and see.

So far, I fear, the commission has shown no interest in having a dialogue with its critics. Father David, to be fair, has at least attempted to respond to criticisms, which is more than his colleagues have done.




I fully appreciate and share your hope that my book will be "read by anyone and everyone who has an interest in the future of the Byzantine Church."

Many years to you too!

Fr Serge

Dear DJS,

I am beginning to suspect that you have your own private copy of the new liturgy because you are related to the printer or are Bishop Pataki's nephew or some such thing. Uncle David maybe?

:p

You are working entirely too hard and making no headway and besides you are beginning to repeat Father David which isn't what I'd call an "advance" of the polyologue.

Did I say that? :rolleyes:

Eli

Dear Eli:
This is probably better for PM, but since you raise it here, FYI: I am no one in particular. I have no connections to and in fact have not even met anyone that Cathy listed as being in the IELC. I care about my church, that's all.

And as Alice knows, I have no Greek, apart from he little she explained to me here. So I am intrigued to hear a suggestion that the phrase is idomatically "men and women". Who renders it this way in the liturgy?

djs,

Yes, και παντων και πασων means and all men and women. Check the 1965 red book again (p. 36, last line on the page); you have a surprise coming.

Then read Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 39 (1998), Nos. 2-4, pp. 342-343.

Serge Keleher

Thanks, Father. "Also all men and all women."
I don't think that this translation ever made it to the grey pew book of about that time; or the later green, black, or red books. And my old Heavenly Manna has "And us all and all things". I suppose the rest of the story will be found in the cited article.

This is one of the most incredibly open, clear and accurate pieces of writing that I have ever seen on this Forum about this Church, or in this Church about this Church in a decade.

The only biting question I have is why now? Why not six years ago? Why not two years ago? Why not last year? Why not in time to save ALL those parishes, all those people, all those priests? Why now?

I could weep.

Eli

Then again, perhaps we would not agree on wheat vs. chaff.

Father David,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Let me say to begin with that I have very much enjoyed your articles over the years on the Divine Liturgy. Your catechetical works on the content of our worship have been very inspiring to me personally.

I have just two brief comments regarding your defense of the commission's work.

First of all, you mention several times the intensity of the emotion that accompanies the debate on inclusive language. To be sure, emotions can become heated in a debate over inclusive language. I would only stress that this happens on both sides of the issue, not only on the part of the more "conservative" leaning members of the Church. It is a difficult debate, and one that can be politically charged, since its proponents often make a deliberate link between inclusive language and the emancipation of women from a "patriarchal" church and society.

Secondly, my issue with the use of inclusive language - and in a particular way, the translation of "anthropos" to words such as "humankind" and phrases such as "lover of us all", is the gap such translations create between our liturgical way of worshipping and the Sacred Scriptures.

One of the guidelines for Biblical translation identified by then Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger (as cited by Father Serge on pp. 54-55) is:

Cardinal Ratzinger's point is that within biblical narratives, the name of an individual can often convey more than just a particular individual or historical figure. There can be - and often is - a dual identity implied: the individual and his descendants or posterity. We see this time again throughout the Old Testament, where the names of biblical figures represent both the individual, a specific office and/or a family line. Israel, for instance, was the name given by YHWH to Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Very early on, Israel became identified as the family name for his descendants (male and female), and the nation (male and female) and ultimately its universal and spiritual manifestation as the catholic ecclesia ("the Israel of God" to use a phrase of St. Paul - certainly male and female!). Interestingly enough, Israel is also treated in Scriptures as both son and bride, indicating a very inclusive approach to his name.

The same holds true for "Adam". According to the principles of narrative analysis, Adam is to be regarded as an individual male created by God in His image and likeness a the beginning of creation. Adam ("man") also is a collective term for the whole of humanity, redeemed now through Jesus Christ the "New Adam".

To say that God is the "lover of humankind" detracts from an explicit connection to Adam as an individual - our first father, if you will, as revealed in the sacred text. I believe that "God the lover of man (adam/anthropos)" comes the closest to conveying the Scriptural meaning/connection, since "adam/man/anthropos" already implies a collective sense. I would have to say that "mankind" only comes slightly closer and that the phrase "lover of us all" is as bland and as nondescript as one could possibly be.

If the language of revelation is to be the normative language for both theology and worship (with the Eastern approach treating the two as virtually identical), I would argue for as close an explicit connection as possible in the work of translating the liturgical texts. To Father Serge's point, a suitable translation of Sacred Scripture should be foundational to any effort at liturgical translation.

Your thoughts?

God bless,

Gordo

As you might notice from the book, I am a keen admirer of the present Pope and I have been reading his theological writings (in translation, since I don't speak German) for years. However, His Holiness - through no fault of his own or anyone else's - presents us with an unusual etiquette problem:

Normally, it is as rude as rude can be to refer to the Holy Father either by his name prior to his election or, still worse, by his surname. [When Hans Kung wrote about "the Montini Pope" everyone realized that Kung was being deliberately impolite.] Now, however, we have Pope Benedict XVI, who is one of the most important theologians of our time. We could not honestly claim that "Pope Benedict XVI" writes thus-and-such and cite a book by Joseph Ratzinger twenty years ago. On the other hand, the man who wrote that book twenty years ago is indeed Pope Benedict XVI, even though he wasn't at the time.

In the footnotes of the book, I adopted the cumbersome solution of giving the author each time as "Joseph [Cardinal] Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI", which is wordy but is at least both accurate and respectful.

Any other solutions or suggestions?

Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

It is an interesting perdicament. I have a book in my library by Andrew N. Woznicki entitled, A Christian Humanism: Karol Wojtyla's Existential Personalism published by Mariel Publications. It was published in 1980, one year after Cardinal Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. I think it is even more difficult a task considering how well "Joseph Ratzinger" was known prior to his election as compared to "Karol Wojtyla", who was known only in limited circles.

Not sure if there is a solution...it appears that Ignatius Press has changed all book jackets to reflect his new role. From an historical perspective, however, it is important to trace the development of his thought from "Fr. Joseph Ratzinger", to "Cardinal Ratzinger" to "Pope Benedict".

God bless!

Gordo

Benedetto the Wise

:rolleyes:

Eli the Mensch

Dear Father David, dear everyone:

Had a pleasant weekend and a most blessed Divine Liturgy, and hope that everyone else was similarly blessed. This is a response to the second draft of Father David�s review of my recent book. As I said the other day, since the review is still in process, what I shall attempt to do is discuss several points which seem of particular importance, in the hope of either clarifying or seeking clarification.

After reading Father David�s draft several times, I�ve chosen to address these matters:

1. The 1941 Church-Slavonic edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom,
2. the use of the �presbyteral prayers� aloud,
3. respect for the clergy and faithful,
4. the issue of �litanies� (the term is inaccurate, but I�ll use it today to avoid greater confusion), and
5. the bearing of Vatican II, the Code of Canons, Orientale Lumen, the Liturgical Instruction and similar documents on our discussion.


To start, then, with the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, hereinafter called for convenience the 1941 Liturgicon. Father David writes that he � would probably extol the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik even more than Keleher as a magnificent work of scholarship, a jewel of Byzantine liturgical history, and an accomplishment which cannot be given enough praise.�
My word! He does indeed think more highly of the 1941 Liturgicon than I do � at least in verbiage. But if he thinks so highly of the book, what does he have against using it?
Somewhat strangely, Father David writes that I support �following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though [I]
do allow for occasional exceptions�. The reasoning is a little hard to follow, but it appears to mean that I propose following the 1941 Liturgicon absolutely except in those cases where I support doing something else � which comes close to being indisputable, but also comes close to being meaningless. It�s like saying that I agree with all religions except on those points concerning which I do not agree with them!

The 1941 Liturgicon (regardless of what language one uses for the service) is the official Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom for use in the Ruthenian Recension. Those who want to change it should at least explain why. Father David nowhere does this � with the single exception that he wants to use English instead of Church-Slavonic, but nobody is arguing with him on that point. I plead guilty to the charge of understanding Church-Slavonic, but I don�t usually serve in Church-Slavonic here in Dublin, and I have no wish to impose Church-Slavonic on anyone. Those who want to use it are obviously free to do so; those who do not want to use it are obviously free to use the language of their choice. We are living in 2006, not 1956, and that issue is over.
So I would seriously ask Father David to tell us, in clear language, what he finds wrong with the 1941 Liturgicon and why, and how he wants to change it � and why there is such a hurry (even the atomic bomb, which he mentions, has been around almost as long as the Ruthenian Recension, for whatever connection there may be. If he knows of some reason to believe that getting rid of the Ruthenian Recension will lead at once to world-wide nuclear disarmament, please tell us this good news!).

Presbyteral prayers aloud? The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom contains almost no presbyteral prayers, aloud or otherwise. What Father David is mis-calling the �presbyteral prayers� are in fact episcopal prayers, properly offered by the Bishop. In the Bishop�s absence, when a presbyter must perforce serve the Divine Liturgy, he offers these prayers out of necessity � but when a Bishop is the celebrant the presbyter �offers� these prayers by uniting himself spiritually to the Bishop. This is not just theoretical; when I was three years a priest I was serving Divine Liturgy with two hierarchs and several older priests, plus two deacons, and I was mistakenly mumbling the prayers in question myself. The priest next to me put up with this for a while, but when the Anaphora began he smiled and said �I�m sorry, Father, but I am trying to hear the Bishop praying the Anaphora!�. I got the message, shut my mouth, and listened to the Bishop � and have done so ever since.
If Father David will kindly read what I wrote, instead of what he thinks I wrote, he will find that I did not put myself in the immobilist position of immobile opposition to the use of, for instance, the Anaphora aloud � but I did say that this is an open question and that the results of this practice in the Roman Liturgy have not been utterly splendid. Are we forbidden to learn from the bad experiences of others?

` Respect for the clergy and the faithful. Father David apparently assumes that he has only to say, for example, �This is not disrespectful of the people�s position.� or �the process was not elitist or gnostic� and those statements become true, because Father David has said them.
But Father David has also said that the people �are, in truth, ignorant of teleology of the Liturgy or of some of the potential that the Liturgy has to bring them closer to God�; �Some people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be� �When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people� �Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response� � without, of course, inviting the people to take part in articulating those needs.

Doesn�t say much for Father David�s claimed respect for the clergy and the people, does it? Nor does it say much for the sort of education that he believes has been available to the clergy and the people. Sounds more like what used to be called �benevolent despotism�, perhaps crossed with an attitude articulated by two twentieth-century political leaders. Woodrow Wilson asserted that he and he alone could discern the common meaning of the common voice. Eamon de Valera said that �when I wish to know what the Irish people want, I look into my own heart.� Such people frighten me; the twentieth century had too many of them. Papal infallibility is problematic and requires careful explanation � but this sort of thing is simply ludicrous. If we are going to have monarchs, we should crown and anoint them, require coronation oaths, and deliver sermons instructing them as to their responsibilities before God and the people.

�Litanies�: what this is about I honestly don�t know, because Father David never explains what his problem is. Was he bitten by an ektene on the banks of the Tiber? A few years ago, someone assured me that he simply dislikes litanies intensely. Father David has denied this, but the evidence of what he writes deprives the denial of at least some credibility. If he seriously wants to be rid of the two small synaptes during the Enarxis, for example, there is nothing to stop him from publishing an article to explain why, in his view, these two synaptes ought not to be there. The same applies to the Aiteseis � if he wants to be rid of them, let him come forth courageously and give his reasons, which can then be discussed intelligently. Instead, he keeps asserting that I am requiring (?) the use of all the litanies in the 1941 Liturgicon � and never explains why that is in his view a bad idea. But until he explains himself, the fact is and will remain that these elements are indeed found in the 1941 Liturgicon and are not described as optional � please do not blame me for that; I was not even born at the time. But since Father David considers himself qualified to tell us that we should do things as he wants us to, because it will be good for us, I feel qualified to tell him to try using the full text consistently over a period of no less than thirty years, because it will be good for him. Turnabout is fair play. If, by the way, Father David cares to criticize my liturgical publications, he is free to do so.

Most bizarre of all, perhaps, is what appears to be Father David�s assertion that the Vatican II �Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996� and, presumably, Orientale Lumen �don�t count� because Father David thinks that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us and will continue to hate us no matter what we do � and he thinks this because, in his experience, �Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics� and �Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband�. He must have had some painful experiences. But they are not necessarily typical of all of Orthodoxy. Sitting at my desk, arthritis and all, I could easily pick up the phone and have pleasant conversations (one at a time) with several Orthodox friends, who show no signs of hating me or my Church. Indeed, I shall probably do just that this very evening. Bishop Kallistos has lectured for the seminary where Father David is on the faculty; if he finds Bishop Kallistos hateful, then Father David is in a minority of one.
It�s hard to understand Father David�s position in this, but I�m inclined to suspect that somewhere in it there lurks a desire � perhaps not fully acknowledged � to make the Greek-Catholic Church a sort of �third way�, a hybrid tertium quid that could never feel comfortable with Orthodoxy, even when communion is restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Why anyone would want to do that is something that I do not claim to know.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for this afternoon. To end as I began, I have not attempted to respond to everything Father David has written in this draft; time enough for that.

Serge Keleher

AAAAAAAAAACK!!

Pardon me Father Serge, but on another thread - I remember not which - I simply addressed you as Serge.

Begging your pardon, Father Serge

NEMO

Dear Nemo - my thanks to you. I consider it more courteous to refrain from asserting my own titles, but that's not an invitation to address me that way! So thank you again.

with every blessing,

SK

As promised, I was on the telephone with an Orthodox colleague in the American midwest earlier this evening - we spoke for a good hour and fifteen minutes (thank God for Internet telephone calls!). There was no difficulty or tension whatever, but plenty of amusing moments.

Serge Keleher

I honestly did not intend to respond to the latest response to my response, because this can - and probably will - go on ad infinitum. However, a friend - and I do have friends - told me that I have to respond to this because it distorts my ecumenical views so much. There is much in the latest response that does twist and distort my position, and much that is ridiculous - why, all of a sudden, call presbyteral prayers - a name recognized by anyone knowledgeable in the Liturgy field - episcopal prayers, except for misdirection. In my response, I haven�t even gotten to this subject yet. However, for the record, these are my observations on his concluding paragraph on ecumenism. His comments are in quotation marks, my observations are interspersed.

Fr. Serge begins:
�Most bizarre of all, perhaps, is what appears to be Father David�s assertion that the Vatican II �Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996� and, presumably, Orientale Lumen �don�t count� because Father David thinks that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us and will continue to hate us no matter what we do�

Words that are put into my mouth. I have never disavowed the Decree on the Eastern Churches, and on Ecumenism, the Codes of Canons and the Liturgical Instruction of 1996, nor did I say that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us - that some Eastern Orthodox hate us is obvious, that we are a problem in the dialogue is obvious to the point of painfulness. I never said that the documents �don�t count,� and I never said that dialogue shouldn�t be carried on - in fact, I have been an active member of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation in North America since 1983. Nor did I say that nothing we can do matters. I said we cannot form a bridge to Orthodoxy, because anyone involved in dialogue today has renounced �uniatism,� and the �bridge theory,� - I did say that if we have the maturity to attend well to our liturgical life for the benefit of our people�s spiritual life, this may help. Everything else does not represent my position and may be slanderous


�� and he thinks this because, in his experience, �Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics� and �Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband�. He must have had some painful experiences.�

I said, �dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics,� because it is. As one Orthodox priest told me, �We can only have union if the Uniates get off all the dialogues.� Before proceeding, does Fr. Serge think that I cannot distinguish between individual opinions and the general opinion of Orthodoxy? - even so, the opinion that Eastern Catholics have no role in dialogue is very common, and it makes dialogue difficult for Eastern Catholics - why else did Balamand have to mention this point explicitly. I said, �Nothing that we can do ... ,� but this is a common Orthodox opinion. It was stated (reputedly) at the Rhodes pre-Synod preparations, and was said by Nissiotis and by other Orthodox, both Greek and Russian. Yes, I have had some painful experiences - but I have continued the dialogue because I believe in the �dialogue of love.�


�But they are not necessarily typical of all of Orthodoxy. Sitting at my desk, arthritis and all, I could easily pick up the phone and have pleasant conversations (one at a time) with several Orthodox friends, who show no signs of hating me or my Church. �

Does Fr. Serge think I have no Orthodox friends that I cannot also phone? I have many Orthodox friends, but my friendship does not constitute official policy, nor does it automatically bring about reunion. In fact, I never said that the Orthodox �hate� us, that is Fr. Serge putting words into my mouth. I did say that on an official level they often don�t tolerate us, because that is true.
What is the point of misquoting me here?


�Indeed, I shall probably do just that this very evening. Bishop Kallistos has lectured for the seminary where Father David is on the faculty; if he finds Bishop Kallistos hateful, then Father David is in a minority of one. �

This is totally outrageous. Completely outrageous. It is a brazen attempt to drive a wedge between me and an Orthodox bishop that I highly respect as a true gentleman and Christian. I never said that Bishop Kallistos hates us - never! And one is not justified in self-righteously saying that this follows logically from my position, because it doesn�t. In no way and in no place do I say that all Orthodox hate us.


�It�s hard to understand Father David�s position in this, but I�m inclined to suspect that somewhere in it there lurks a desire � perhaps not fully acknowledged � to make the Greek-Catholic Church a sort of �third way�, a hybrid tertium quid that could never feel comfortable with Orthodoxy, even when communion is restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Why anyone would want to do that is something that I do not claim to know.�

He not only claims to know my mind, as if it were my mind from the words he puts into it, but then ridicules me for what he thinks that I think. And he can get away with it, not because any of it is true, but because some people want to believe it�s true. The Greek Catholic Church is not a �third way�: that is not my opinion, has never been my opinion, and never will be my opinion. We do have the dignity of a particular church and the ability to make decisions for our own spiritual welfare but we never do this in isolation or apart from the universal Church. His sentence is complete innuendo and manipulation of ideas, which shows why an objective conference on Liturgy as proposed on this Forum will be so impossible.

With hope in Christ,

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your continued posting here.

I think that you must consider that they way you present your case is very confusing and leads to people form conclusions that you might not hold. In your writings on this Forum (as well as in your response to Father Serge�s book) you have repeatedly made references to (some) Orthodox who dislike us. But you�ve never explained what their opinion of us - or even the issue of ecumenism � has to do with Liturgy. [Since you keep mentioning it is logical to conclude that you think there is some sort of link.]

Questions about what some (or many) Orthodox think about Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics or even matters of ecumenism are irrelevant to questions of Liturgy. We are not called to live the fullness of our liturgical tradition because it might get someone to like us or because we might or might not be a bridge to anywhere. We are called to live the fullness of our liturgical tradition in its correct form because it is the right thing to do. It is where we encounter Christ.

Admin

I bring it up because it seems to be your (and other's) principle that the Orthodox will respect us only if we say all the litanies and sing the antiphons in full, and that to do otherwise is anti-ecumenical and will put distance between them and us. That should be clear, and your observation is argumentative. In fact, I have said exactly what you say in your second paragraph, and I quote from the previous post, the Response to Fr. Keleher's book:

"The original vision of Rome saw us as a tool to unity, as a bridge to Orthodoxy, but the �bridge theory� has fallen with the disavowal of uniatism, if, indeed, it could have ever been effective with the bulk of the Orthodox Church. .... Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody�s tool."

This should be clear, even if we disagrre radically on how it should be carried out.

This seems to be "petras-baiting," just to rile me up.

Father David,

If we can pull together a conference in Chicago prior to the promulgation of the liturgy would you be willing to present the case for the new liturgy to that meeting? If we can have you and other commission members there all the better. If you and Father Serge can be their together to take us through this liturgy step by step what a blessing this would be. I've sent you a pm about this. Perhaps you have missed it. But we would really like to have whatever comes forth be a blessing to the entire Church and to assuage any fears people might have. We also would like the commission to hear the people before this is promulgated.

What do you say? If we paid for your travel expenses would you come. It's informal. We've asked for the bishop's blessing. We aren't trying to do anything behind anyone's back. From the reaction we've received in our Churches thus far such a presentation is vitally necessary if this is going to be a blessing and not a cause of frustration.

Can we count on you coming if the dates work out?

Carson Daniel Lauffer

Dear Father David, You posted:

"I bring it up because it seems to be your (and other's) principle that the Orthodox will respect us only if we say all the litanies and sing the antiphons in full, and that to do otherwise is anti-ecumenical and will put distance between them and us. That should be clear, and your observation is argumentative. In fact, I have said exactly what you say in your second paragraph, and I quote from the previous post, the Response to Fr. Keleher's book:"

Setting the possible thoughts of the Orthodox not in Communion with Rome aside,I ask:

What does God think of his Church when it deletes prayers from the Liturgy?

Do we have something better to do than fully partcipate in the Divine Liturgy?

Do those we pray for in (all of) the Litanies no longer need our prayers since they were compile by St. John Chrysostom and others?

What benefits are there to skipping/deleting/etc. Litanies and Antiphons?

Thank you, Father David, for your post.

I have never made the above point. The point I made was quite different.

Pope John Paul the Great challenged us on numerous occasions to faithfully witness Orthodoxy (as full as is possible within Roman communion). He called us to do this because it is the right thing to do. It is possible that such a witness might somehow contribute to reunion (perhaps by showing that it is really possible to be in communion with Rome and be faithful to Orthodoxy). But that would be a dividend of doing what is correct. We must do what is right (restore the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension) because it is right. Any such dividend (if it occurred at all) would only be a bonus. This is, however, an entirely different discussion.

What you write here has nothing to do with your claimed need to reform the Liturgy.

The spiritual needs and welfare of our people will be best met by embracing and praying our own liturgical tradition in its fullness. The recent Holy Fathers and all the Vatican documents keep telling us this. The few parishes that we have that are growing are those which strive to attempt to celebrate our official tradition.

I agree that we should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. I have been saying this all my life. The problem is that the proposed changes are not faithful to the Ruthenian recension. They are nothing more than picking and choosing customs from long ago. Those proposing the changes have yet to begin to offer a real case supporting any of the changes.

What kind of case do I wish to see from those proposing the changes? I expect a scholarly book like Father Keleher�s, except from your perspective. I expect it to have hundreds of supporting references from the early Church fathers down to Benedict XVI (solid liturgical theology) demonstrating beyond a doubt that the official Ruthenian recension is so flawed that it must be changed (unilaterally by us apart from all the Churches � Catholic and Orthodox � which make up the recension). I expect a believable discussion on why the principles given in Liturgicam Authenticam are wrong. I expect a solid discourse demonstrating how the Latin Church now has benefited from praying the anaphora aloud for 30+ years - including everything that such a practice is hoped to bring to the Byzantine Church. I expect it to include a convincing argument demonstrating why we can�t wait for such things to evolve across Orthodoxy (and us with them) over the coming generations. If there is a claim that the Orthodox are already doing this (which you have made repeatedly) I want to see a listing of the Orthodox jurisdictions that have mandated these changes.

I have probably read everything you have written on this topic (which has been published in our papers). But I do understand the difference between a newspaper column and a scholarly presentation. What you have written (even here) has only shown us that you believe strongly that we should change the Liturgy. You have not offered any evidence to support your claims.


There are always some such people in these internet discussions. What you see in my posts is probably the frustration of never getting any believable justifications for the proposed revisions.

In my own studies I see everything from the Church fathers to Benedict XVI telling us to live our official Ruthenian recension so that it may form us and save us. I see the need for unity and continued commonality with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

Everything I read (including what you have written thus far) convinces me more and more that the proposed changes are wrong for our Church.

Father David,

What Father Serge wrote about the relationship between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox was justified by your original diatribe. Please quit whining and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of �petras-baiting.�

Why are you are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the 1941 book from becoming the standard for our church.

JD

Father David,

I said before that I have been an admirer of your writings for years. But your posts here have left me, well perplexed. Your credentials as both a scholar and a pastor of souls are highly regarded. Your work to ensure a fuller experience of the Byzantine tradition in our parishes is commendable. I don't know of anyone who has ever spoken ill of you personally.

And yet, time and again you seem to read into posts criticisms of a personal nature that others do not see. Father Serge's critique of the commission's work is both thorough and deserving of a response from the commission. It is objective and scholarly. As you know, in the world of scholarship, debate is common fare. (The debate between then Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper is an interesting and very high profile example.)

In my own consulting with leaders at all levels of corporations both nationally and internationally over the years, I have encountered individuals that, when faced with a conflict in the arena of ideas, resort to a defensive posture and ascribe a personal attack where none exists. This behavior is designed to effectively shame those who disagree into silence. Such behavior is unbecoming a leader in any role, but most especially one who bears the weight of pastoral responsibility with a scope that touches the whole of the Metropolia.

As a "spiritual son" who would never wish to see the nakedness of his father exposed for all to see, I beg you sincerely to consider the nature of your calumnious accusations against others here on this forum. Prior to your posts, any weakness exposed on your part has been one of scholarship, not of character. If you are willing to stay engaged on the issues broached by Father Serge and others on this forum, I have no doubt that you will gain and retain the respect and appreciation of all here. As Father Serge has mentioned, you of all the members of the commission have braved the waters of the laos in a public forum. We need you to draw upon your fatherly courage and remain with us, engaging us in the realm of ideas.

As the Scriptures teach us, "Come let us reason together..."

Many years,

Gordo

Dear Fr. David,

No one here wants to "petras-bait". At least, I don't. All I, personally, want is some sort of argument as to why these changes are being made. As I read the forum, the "whys" are never forthcoming.

I asked you a question on the forum a few months ago, which perhaps you missed, but which has never been answered:

Why does the commision think "For us and for our salvation" is better and a more accurate rendering of the creed than "For us men and for our salvation" or "for us humans and for our salvation?"

The failure to answer this question and many others like it, not just about inclusive language, leads to a lack of credibility. I, for my part, am ready to be convinced that I am wrong, and that "for us and for our salvation" is better; no one has attempted to convince me of this. Since no-one gives reasons for the changes, and there must in fact be reasons for the changes, one tends to leap to conclusions for what the unstated reasons are. Thus the conviction of many that "feminist ideology" and not Christian theology is driving this.

If I am wrong, tell me why not. How does "propter nos homines" or "hemas tous anthropous" benefit by failing to translate "anthropous?" Note that this is not an issue of inclusive language; I am perfectly willing to accept "for us humans." But "for us?"

Teach me. Why am I wrong on this?

Slight tangent - but not, I hope, of no importance:

The "Ruthenian Recension" is a term which refers to a specific set of liturgical books published by the Oriental Congregation (which is a department of the Holy See in Rome) from 1941 until 1975 (so far), including:

The Liturgicon - available as a complete book, or as a series of offprints:

Vespers and Orthros
The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom
The Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great
The Divine Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts
and a few supplements

The Gospel Book (available in complete and abridged form, in large size or small size)

The Epistle Book (like the Gospel Book)

The Book of Hours (large edition and pocket edition)

The Small Trebnyk ("Book of Needs")

The Book of Molebens (this has never been translated into English)

The Archieraticon (the book used by the Bishop in holding the Divine liturgy and certain other services, such as ordinations, the consecrations of churches and antimensia, and so on - this has never been translated into English)

The "Ordo Celebrationis" - directions for how to serve Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy

Except for the Archieraticon, these books were all produced by a commission set up in the late nineteen-thirties by Pope Pius XI and the Oriental Congregation, because the "Ruthenian" bishops themselves could not agree and requested the Holy See to produce a definitive set of books. They were definitely not intended as something "optional". The prime mover in this commission was Father Cyril Korolevsky, of holy memory.

"Ruthenian" in this context includes Ukrainians (the large majority of this category), Greek-Catholics originating on the southern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, Slovak Greek-Catholics. "Ruthenian" is a complicated term to begin with and to add to the confusion, Ukrainians generally do not care to have this word applied to themselves, even though they use these service books. Because of this confusion, there are those in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh who have the impression that the "Ruthenian Recension" applies to them exclusively.

The proposed recasting of the Divine Liturgy which my book discusses is NOT the Ruthenian Recension, and calling it that will only add further confusion.

Discussing how these books were developed, and on what basis, is an endeavor that I am willing and prepared to engage in - but is a separate matter to the discussion of the proposed recasting.

Neither in theory nor in practice is there anything to inhibit, let alone prevent, the translation of these books into any language one pleases. Some of them can be found in English; some can be found in Ukrainian. There is at least one edition of the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in Hungarian. Most recently, the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been published in Slovak. There may - I don't know - be the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom published in Spanish.

All this and much more can be addressed at the planned conference - and should be.

Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

Thanks for a scholarly work of art!

May our bishops (who may or may not love God but are definitely loved by Him) look kindly on your gift to us by directing our liturgical commission to publicly review and respond to your brilliant scholarship.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,
My thanks to you for your evident appreciation of my work. I'm very pleased that you find it worth-while.

With every blessing,

Fr Serge

Eli,

Thank you.

Many of us have been asking the bishops for the past 20 years not to reform the liturgy. Seeing the text of the reformed liturgy was the last straw.

Blessed Theodore

This is a double posting. I posted the first one in the wrong place.

Fr. Keleher has sent his book to most of the priests in the Metropolia. This is what prompted me to write a response, since there is certainly another side to this story. It took me a few days to go over chapters 9 and 10, which were more detailed than the first 8. I will be adding these two chapters in my next post. I hope to conclude my review of his book soon with paragraphs on the Public Recitation of the Anaphora.and conclusions.

My review of his response speaks for itself. I feel that our Commission deserves this defense. I must say though that some of the acrimony on the web site has been disedifying to me, and I regret being dragged into a defensive position. After this, I hope to be able to make a more positive statement about the liturgy.

Fr. Dave

Fr. Keleher turns to the texts themselves in chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9, he affirms, will deal with texts that are simply wrong. Chapter 10 will deal with texts that present problems of translation, acknowledging that �a perfect translation of such material is an unattainable goal,� though one, of course, must try as much as possible for accuracy. (Page 169)
Let us look first at what he considers errors (chapter 9). Again, I follow his numbering.
1) He first raises the question of the word despota in Greek. It is certainly true that despota means, literally, �Master.� Perhaps in the introduction to the Lord�s Prayer, this was missed, as Fr. Keleher points out, and the 1964 translation was reproduced without critique. The change of title for human beings serving in a particular role was deliberately changed, since �Master,� in English, is no longer the ordinary greeting for bishops or priests. Lumped together with the �Master� problem, is the question of what to call the �Holy Table.� Greek usually uses, �� haghia trapeza,� literally, �the holy table,� but sometimes �thysiast�rion,� �place of sacrifice,� as in the prayer of access to the altar (offering). The translation is careful to retain �the holy Table,� in the actual texts of prayers, but not so careful in the rubrics, since �altar� for �holy Table,� and �sanctuary� for �altar� has become common in English. Fr. Keleher may be right in calling for more consistency here, but it cannot be labeled entirely erroneous, since this vocabulary has become so common in English vernacular.
2) This was a conscious decision that �community� would be more inclusive than �village.�
3) The question of the use of �Orthodox� continues to be vexing for some people. I certainly don�t think we should fear the word �orthodox.� I see a problem in us claiming to be �Orthodox,� when we are not in communion with the world-wide �Orthodox Church,� but my take here seems to be idiosyncratic.
4) The question of �ages of ages,� is also sensitive. It is not literal, but it does mean �forever.� In the scientific world, the idea that the universe is cyclical in a series of �ages� is archaic, or at least, controversial. However one deals with this problem and its connection with common language should have placed this phrase among translation problems rather than translation errors. It seems this is an old problem, as the traditional Catholic translation indicates, �as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.� The author�s opinion that it is simply erroneous is his own.
5) This is Fr. Keleher�s opinion. Other scholars believe it does mean �concelebration� in the full technical sense. This translation was commended in the Oriental Congregation review (� 50). In each Liturgy, the whole Church, including the angels, are truly celebrating together, and Christ is the Church.
6) I hardly think the difference between �mighty� and �strong� is as stark as the author paints. I don�t think even the author should label it �erroneous,� but �less preferable.�
7) The suggestion (�alms�) is intriguing and deserves more consideration. Peter Galadza�s translation is �for those who are kind to us.� I would generally favor more concrete texts over the abstract mercy. The phrase does not occur in the present Greek. I leave the question open, noting only that in a modern congregation the members are more likely to receive mercy or kindness than alms.
8) The question here is how literal do we have to be? �Send down your compassions upon us,� is literal, but not the way an ordinary English speaker would talk today. Likewise in (9), we would probably not say a �place of verdure.� In the process in the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission, the Greek was consulted, but the alternatives, �verdure,� or �refreshment,� were found lacking.
10) The Greek here does mean acts committed in ignorance. The idea is that the priest should know better, while the faithful are �ignorant.� It was a conscious decision of the Commission to make a distinction between these two words, but we felt that something more than acts done simply out of ignorance was meant. The Commission does recognize the existence of �involuntary� sins, and sins done �unknowingly. �Ignorances,� however, is not the usual way of speaking in English. A teacher would be more likely to say, �Johnny, you didn�t know three answers,� than �Johnny, you had three ignorances.�
11) Fr. Keleher asks, �Do the compilers of this draft seriously suggest that the psalmist here is directly prophetic of the Christian Eucharist?� No, certainly not, but the Church often uses psalms as if they were fulfilled in the Christian dispensation. So when the psalmist says, �Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his footstool,� he does not mean the Cross, but the Liturgy uses it this way. (Psalm 98:5, Prokeimenon for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, September 14) Of course, �the holies� is left indeterminate in Greek. Possible determinations are the Commission or Fr. Keleher�s opinions.
12) It is an exact citation, of course, but a mea culpa is due for not noticing Fr. Taft�s intervention.
13) There is general agreement that this phrase does not mean �offered,� but �set forth,� or �placed before.� The Greek and Slavonic does not have �us.� Fr. Keleher makes the same point in (15), though it must also be admitted that the texts must refer to the visible, material gifts of bread and wine, becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, in the chalice and on the diskos, that are on the Holy Table [lying before us.] After a certain point, absolutely exact translation may become clumsy, �for these precious gifts lying,� won�t do, �for these precious gifts lying �here,� or, as Fr. Keleher suggests, �here present,� but �here� is not in the text either.
14) The �logical� sacrifice. As stated, it is, of course, not good English. I myself would agree that �rational� sacrifice is probably the closest we can get, though �rational,� (and likewise �intellectual� for �noetical,� which does not occur in the Liturgy but is a consistent problem in the Divine Praises) does not have the same range of meaning in English as it does in Greek. Since even the scholarly Bishop Kallistos in undecided on this matter, as Keleher observes (page 184), I would submit that this should be moved to the translation problems chapter.
16) �Rightly dividing,� is certainly odd English, at least today, and �teachings� are �imparted.�
17) The two petitions were joined precisely to show their unity. We have been getting along with it for centuries - but not in the vernacular. Note here also the author�s tendency to trivialize translations he doesn�t like. At any rate, �again and again,� we do not have �errors,� but simply alternate translations.
18) �Let us pray,� in English sounds entirely normal, but �let us beseech� without an object would seem odd. Perhaps the subject of this beseeching was omitted in Greek, since �tou Christou,� (the �judgment-seat of Christ�) would have collided with �tou kyriou,� as �tou Christou tou Kyriou.�
20) The Liturgy Commission did not translate the Lord�s Prayer, but simply left it in the form most people use. Therefore, there is no �error of translation,� here.
21) This again is not a translation problem, but the conscious decision of the Commission to leave the prayer in the form in which people say it. The Prayer before Communion, in all branches of the Byzantine Church, appears in many different forms, probably witnessing to its relatively recent introduction. Some have objected that this phrase reflects Roman transsubstantiation theology, but it is certainly difficult to discern anything �un-Orthodox� here. The point has been made, but it seems to be of minimal importance or legalistic.
22) Likewise here, the Commission decided to follow the Greek literally. �Mouth� in the singular is grammatically acceptable, and the distinction between �mouth� and �lips� appears to be of minimal importance. The Commission also decided to retain the common sung form, which the author notes as an �Old Kyivan text� (page195), as well as its inclusion in plain chant books. It is certainly a valid alternate text, and cannot in any way be construed as an �error of translation.� (It might be labeled as an error of not following the 1941 Ruthenian Recension text literally, but, in any case, would be an objection of minimal importance.)
23) One must disagree with the author here. I certainly think that the person of average intelligence would see the connection between the priest/deacon�s exclamation, �Remember forever,� with the people�s response �eternal memory.� His statement, �the intention here is not to ask God to remember someone eternally (...) but to ask God to grant that the memory of this person should be eternal,� is extremely curious. In both cases, we are speaking of the �memory� of God, which is all that counts, and �God remembering,� and the �memory of God,� are the same in the divine reality where being is action. In either case, the person inhabits the Kingdom of heaven by divine action.

To sum up this chapter, the author presents twenty-three cases of translations that he considers �simply erroneous.� (Page 170) A closer analysis of these instances, however, reveals that even if you concede every point to him, then only about half are about translation �errors,� while the rest are what he calls �matters of taste.� (Page 170) The Commission does, obviously, take the contemporary usage of English more into account than Fr. Keleher. (cf. The discussion about �ignorances,� et al.) After reading this whole section, I would be moved to change number 12 as he suggested. At a minimum, this and the correction to �Master� in the introduction to the Lord�s Prayer (1) and the only changes that would be required, and, even here, it is not central to the Liturgy. As indicated in number 1, I would make the liturgical texts and rubrical texts of �Holy Table,� and �altar� consistent. I personally would engage in further discussion about numbers 7, 10 and 14, the last being the most substantive theologically. Finding, in general, such minor problems of translation, mostly �matters of taste,� reaffirms the value of the translation and in no way leads to the harsh conclusion he makes that �the 12 October 2004 draft cannot be considered accurate, let alone definitive.� The Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in contrast, said �those who submitted this text, prepared with great care and in proper form, are to be warmly commended for such a superb piece of work.� (Rome, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001.

Fr. Serge entitles chapter 10, �Some Questionable Translations.� It would seem that the distinction he is making is that while chapter 9 dealt with simple errors, chapter 10 deals with translations that are questionable. I was unable to discern that much difference between the matters raised, and he comes to a similar conclusion (page 239), there should be a �careful and thorough review before allowing it to come into use.� The implication (�careful review�) implies that the cases presented reflect a certain carelessness.

What, then, of these thirty-two points. I again follow his numbering.
1) has been rendered a moot point, since the June 2005 draft returned to �God-loving.�
3) Modern warfare is not the same as the Tzar and his armies.
4) I myself would favor �righteous,� but the objection seems of minor importance.
5) Though the terminology in the East is problematical, �priests� may be either �celebrants� or �con-celebrants.� The rubrics were written to clarify which role is meant. The principal celebrant is the �presider,� and hence gives all the blessings. This is not mentioned in the Ordo Celebrationis, but it was not an issue at the time. The Ordo Celebrationis seems to be concerned with which ekphoneses the principal celebrants says, and that the con-celebrating priests say all the presbyteral prayers (sotto voce, though in 1941 this would not have been an issue). At any rate, this is more a question of rubrics than translation. The celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy presumes unity: one holy table, one ahnec (Lamb), one distributor of the Eucharist, because one is the Lord, Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is one presider.
6) The author does not state his preference. I would prefer �house,� which is more ancient terminology.
7) Is Fr. Keleher here advocating a return to archaic English? This would change the whole nature of his protest. In any case, the Prayer of the Cherubicon is certainly a private prayer of the priest, not for the hearing of the congregation.
8) The author gets sarcastic in this observation, but the Commission does know that �shall� is still in the English language, but felt �will� to be more appropriate here.
9) But certainly the place where God dwells is always �holy of holies.�
10) The Commission follows the opinion that �orthoi� is equivalent to a call for attentiveness. It is found also in the 1965 translation.
11) The author�s preference for �ages� has been noted.
13) This is not really a translation issue, since neither the word �homily,� nor the word �sermon� appears in the original text. The author simply expresses his preference for the word �sermon� and sarcastically asks if the Commission knows the difference. I believe �homilies� to be a quasi-essential part of the Liturgy (though certainly not demanded on absolutely every occasion). There is no rubric about them, since they are the last part of the Liturgy to remain spontaneous. I would hold that the Decree on the Liturgy of the Vatican II Council is equally applicable to the Eastern Church, �By means of the homily (Latin, homilia) the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Chrstian life are expounded from the sacred texts during the course of the liturgical year. The homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself.� (Sacrosanctum concilium 52)
14) There is no necessity to be afraid of the word �ministry,� simply because it is used frequently by Protestants.
15) Fr. Keleher�s counter-proposal is certainly correct. However, that does not make the draft text incorrect. The word leitourgein, which one is tempted to translate �liturgize,� is sometimes difficult to put into contemporary English. Likewise, the Commission did not feel it necessary to avoid all words which can be misconstrued in the vernacular. I know one educated gentleman who wanted to ban the word �love� from the Liturgy.
16) Words provided for �holy� have been discussed.
17) The meaning can be ambiguous, but Fr. Serge offers no compelling rationale for �Slave,� or �servant.�
18) This actually follows the opinion of Louis Ligier, S.J., of the Oriental Institute, who wrote,
"Our formula however is distinguished by the use of the accusative: therefore it is to be interpreted as an adverbial locution. Then, "all" is not matter or a reason for praise, but the collateral circumstances in which God is to be praised. The prepositions kata and dia are to be given a temporal and local meaning which they admit with the accusative. A. Couturier translates them into French as "en tout temps et partout.� Then the Byzantine formula corresponds to the Latin formula of the Preface: "nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere." (Magnae Orationis Eucharisticae, Rome 1964)
19) This has been an academic ping pong ball. Fr. Mateos held for �purification of the soul,� but as Fr. Keleher notes, �the scholarly pendulum began to swing back to the textus receptus.� (Page 214) The Commission followed Fr. Taft�s opinion, �it is preferable to adhere to the reading of the textus receptus.� The publication of the Old Russian Liturgicon is, of course, certainly of great interest, but it is subsequent not only to the Commission�s work, but also the review by Rome. It could be changed in the final draft, of course, but perhaps, as Fr. Keleher admits, �this does not necessarily mean that the problem is now definitely solved.� (Page 216) Perhaps here we are, in fact, dealing with two alternate texts and either reading may be chosen until the problem is definitely solved.
20) We usually do not say �all-laudable,� or �all-praised� in contemporary English, and the Commision found �illustrious� a reasonable alternative.
21) Fr. Serge does admit the translation is defensible. The rest is a matter of taste.
22) and 23) These objections seem of minor importance.
24) The very long discussion of the Prayer before the Our Father does contain some very interesting points. As to whether the draft text is as clumsy as he says would seem to be to be a matter of taste. Certainly the introduction of the words�may they bring about,� in an attempt to make two distinct English sentences can be discussed. For me, Fr. Serge�s discussion shows how difficult it is sometimes to follow him, for on page 222, he says that the word parr�sia is rendered �filial Confidence,� by Father Taft and adds, �is there sufficient reason to disagree with him?� Then, in footnote 147, where he consistently holds that the meaning is correct, he adds, �but do most people today understand the word �filial.� My guess would be that there is sufficient reason for disagreeing with the word �filial� (the people will not understand it�), but, if the Liturgy Commission had used it, what would have been the response? [Interestingly, Fr. Serge puts these two phrases together, word for word, in his critique of the introduction to the Our Father (page228)] Moreover, there is a philosophical problem here, in other places Fr. Serge argues for a hieratic type English, one not perfectly contemporary, yet here excludes �filial� because the people will not understand it. I don�t want to quibble over words, but sometimes it is difficult to follow all these permutations.
25) There is much repetition in these sections. The question of the title �Master,� has been mentioned above, and this should be corrected. The problem of �filial� confidence was discussed immediately above. Since the Lord�s Prayer follows the traditional English (archaic) translation, which the Commission retained because it has been memorized and used by the faithful, Fr. Serge recommends translating �you� as �thee.� The Lord�s Prayer, however, is the only instance where archaic English has been retained, precisely for the sake of the faithful. Since he then proposes in (26) to correct the text of the Our Father, why not correct it into contemporary English? Therefore, my recommendation would be the opposite of his.
27-30) The observations here are truly minor and no real error in the draft copy is pointed out. However, as I observed, it is sometimes difficult to follow Fr. Serge, in chapter 9, point 22, he observes that the word �pure,� which he admits is found in Old Kyivan texts, should be omitted if we want to be faithful to the Ruthenian recension (pages 194-195), but here it seems we are criticized (albeit mildly) for not following the Old Kyivan tradition (pages 234-235).
31) The author agrees that the translation is �defensible,� but he prefers another rendition.
32) Fr. Serge admits this may have been inspired by some scriptural renderings, but wants to retain the usual translation. His reasoning is not convincing. The passage is from James 1:17. Here he claims that this wording is not found in the New American Bible (Revised New Testament), which in fact reads, �all good giving (and every perfect gift).�
33) It is difficult to understand what he is asking here. He seems to be saying, �this is a question, not a criticism,� but goes on to make a criticism anyhow, even though he admits that enapetheto can mean �store up.�

He sums up his evidence as a point for shelving the October draft until all these �questionable translations� are adopted. As above for chapter 9, the conclusion goes far beyond the gravity of the instances brought forth, many based simply on his personal preference, and which were discussed over a period of years by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission.

Are you telling us that Father Keleher has made a gift of his book to MOST of the priests in our Metropolia?

That is multiple thousands of dollars at 20 or 25 dollars per book, Father David.

Somehow that assertion seems radically improbable to me.

Eli

Credit belongs where credit is due - and in this instance I cannot take the credit for presenting each priest of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA with a copy of my book. I simply did not and do not have the money that such a generous act would have cost.

But I do thank Father David and others who have kindly responded to what I have written.

Serge Keleher

As far as us "claiming to be 'Orthodox' when we are not in communion with the world-wide “Orthodox Church,” , Bishop of Parma Robert Moskal of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church views this entirely differently and I would call his assessment correct.

I have provided a paragraph of his writing that talks directly to this and how Patriarch Joseph Slipyi disagrees with your assessment as well and the I have also included his complete write up on this column so that all can see the entire context of the article:

"The late Patriarch Joseph Slipyi firmly stood on the ground that we must not abandon the use of this word [Orthodox] at all costs, because it leads to a correct understanding of our very identity. We can understand that with the gradual estrangement of Eastern Christians from Western Christians, that some misunderstanding can easily arise especially since the term "Orthodox" has shifted in popular parlance from describing The Faith to describing the Church. Nonetheless, we strive to overcome misunderstandings and continue to use the word Orthodox properly, especially in our own day and age to overcome the difficulties of the past and pray for the unity of all the true -- believers in the One Church of Jesus Christ."

And now the whole article:

"Dear Bishop Robert,

Why do we pray for “orthodox Christians” in our Liturgy?

Curious

Dear Curious,

During the Divine Liturgy we pray for everyone. Your question undoubtedly is prompted because of some people's understanding or perception of the term "Orthodox". The English term is derived from the Greek Orthododokeo which means to teach rightly. In a passive sense, it is applied to those who had been "rightly taught", hence "true believing". It seems to me that when this Greek term was translated into Church-Slavonic (or ancient Bulgarian), the translator misinterpreted the second half of the verb Dokeo (to teach-Doksia participle) and confused it with the Greek word (to glorify) -- Doksia (glory), so that many have come to understand the word "Orthodox" as meaning "true -- worshipers" or those "rightly glorifying God". Hence, the word: Pravoslavnyj.
Curious, are you confused by now? Who wouldn't be! Be as it may, the word "Orthodox" has been used throughout the history of the church to describe the Faith of the Church. It appears in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the Liturgies of both the Eastern and Western Churches. In the old Latin text of the Roman Catholic Mass, the people prayed "pro orthoxis fidelibus" i.e. for "Orthodox Christians", meaning the faithful who professed the accurate teachings of the Faith. However, since the word "Orthodox" originated in the Eastern Church(es), it was and has been widely used. For us to deny that our Faith is Orthodox, would be negating or re-writing the history of the Church and the terminology which the Church has used and uses.

In modern day Ukraine, many people, not wanting to be confused with the Orthodox Church, especially the Russian Church, argue against the use of the word "Orthodox". The late Patriarch Joseph Slipyi firmly stood on the ground that we must not abandon the use of this word at all costs, because it leads to a correct understanding of our very identity. We can understand that with the gradual estrangement of Eastern Christians from Western Christians, that some misunderstanding can easily arise especially since the term "Orthodox" has shifted in popular parlance from describing The Faith to describing the Church. Nonetheless, we strive to overcome misunderstandings and continue to use the word Orthodox properly, especially in our own day and age to overcome the difficulties of the past and pray for the unity of all the true -- believers in the One Church of Jesus Christ. The communion, in the love of Christ, of all "Orthodox churches" in the Universal Church is the one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church of Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has underscored many times that we are "Orthodox in Faith, and Catholic in the bonds of love."

Yours In Christ,

+Bishop Robert

Great Fast 2004"

Ahhh...so then you have not "sent" your book to most of the priests in the Metropolia at all as Father David said.

For Father David's statement to be true in any real sense would actually mean that most-many of the priests in the Metropolia have purchased your book from the distributor of the book.

Apparently, something was lost in translation!

Eli

I said that I (me, moi, mise, me fein, myself . . . from аз to Я for the slavists among us) did not send out the book to the Byz-Ruth Metropolia priests. I added that the reason why I did no such thing was that I had and have no such money. I am aware of a bulk order in something resembling the appropriate numbers and (although I'm not handling the finances) I would take it for granted that such a bulk order warrants a serious discount.

Assuming that this is what happened, we should all be thankful to the benefactor, even though that benefactor is not the undersigned!

Serge Keleher

P.S. - Further to Bishop Robert's comments on the word Orthodox: this term still occurs in the present Roman Mass in Latin: in the opening of the first Eucharistic Prayer, the priest prays "pro omnibus orthodoxis".

So, we are left with two questions: Do all of the priests in the Metropolia have Father Serge's book or not? If they do, how do with thank the anonymous benefactor?

If every priest has one and if every priest has a copy of the proposed translation it should be easy to have a conference with educated laity provided that: 1. Every priest makes both the new translation and Father's book available to the laity; and 2. Every Church comes with representatives of that Church.

CDL

I know several who, at this moment, do not have a copy, nor are they aware of any mass mailing. There is most likely a hierarchy within the ranks. That would not be unusual. So I would not presume at all!!

Eli

Clearly "something resembling."

Well here's a toast to the forgotten few.

Eli

The questions are raised:

"So, we are left with two questions: Do all of the priests in the Metropolia have Father Serge's book or not? If they do, how do with thank the anonymous benefactor?

"If every priest has one and if every priest has a copy of the proposed translation it should be easy to have a conference with educated laity provided that: 1. Every priest makes both the new translation and Father's book available to the laity; and 2. Every Church comes with representatives of that Church."

The benefactor reports that those who wish to express gratitude may send letters of thanks to Stauropegion Press - those who wish to express gratitude more tangibly may send checks to Stauropegion Press - and those who wish to express great gratitude may send orders to Stauropegion Press! Seems fair to me.

At the risk of tooting my own horn (who? me?) I would strongly suggest that a call to conference include a reading list (including my book - don't die of shock) and also a registration form asking, for example, how competent the conferee is in Church-Slavonic, and even Greek. The point is not to keep anybody away, but to let the presentors have an idea of the needs of the conferees. There would be no point in quoting lots of things in Greek, for instance, if almost no one could understand it. I would love to give a long speech in Irish, but I fear that the audience for such a speech, while enthusiastic, might be of rather low numbers!

Fr Serge