www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The rest of the story

I was reading the dicussion about the New Liturgy, and I saw what was being written about Fr. Keleher's book, so I went to speak with our pastor. I asked him to order me a copy of the book, my pastor gave it to me last week.

I don't know the languages, so some of what Fr. Keleher wrote went over my head, but I read every page anyway. It made me realize I need to study more about this. So I went to my pastor with some questions!

My pastor doesn't like the New Liturgy, and it was very interesting talking to him about it. My pastor knows Fr. David Petras well, and knows most of the priests on the committee.

There were a few things I didn't understand, but my pastor filled in some parts of the story, that seem to make sense.

He said Fr. Petras is absolutely right about one thing, the draft printed in Fr. Keleher's book is not all his work, and Fr. Petras is trying to defend things here, that he didn't agree with. My priest said heard this from one of the committee. The committee did produce a better and more complete translation, that they sent to the bishops. But the bishops took a red pen to their work, and told the committee to leave out some things, and put back some things, and change some things back the way they were. Fr. Petras is right, and he is not the only 'mover' who wrote that draft. In many places, it is nothing at all like what the committee wanted, but he has to defend it anyway. My priest admired that, and thought Fr. Petras deserved an A+ for defending even the parts he doesn't agree with.

I thought the most interesting part of Fr. Keleher's book, was the part about the history of our liturgy book. I knew about the fights about married priests and all, but I didn't know they had fought so much about the Liturgy book. I asked my priest if all that was true, and he said it was! Only, he said, Fr. Keleher only told part of the story, and that he didn't bring the history up to date. He didn't tell half of the story. He said he guessed that you're not supposed to talk about people while they're alive?

My pastor said the argument is not really about words or translations, it's about our Church. When he told me that, I think I began to understand why people, on both sides, were so angry about it.

Years ago, the Ukrainian bishops and the Byzantine bishops thought about working together to produce English books that we could both share. Sounds like a good idea, but there was opposition in our Church, by those who hated Ukrainians, and didn't want to have anything to do with them, work with them, or have anything in common with them. But when our books came out, some Ukrainians began using them in some places.

But the real interesting story is that when our books came out, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church began using our English books, they liked them, and the brown pew book was in use in many many parishes. They had always used our Slavic books, after all.

Bishop Nicholas, of the Carpatho-Russians, even asked our Archbishop (not Archbishop Basil, a few Archbishops ago) if we could make it official, and work together on all our books. The archbishop and one of the bishops was in favor, but one bishop was absolutely opposed. Apparantly, he hated the Orthodox more than he hated the Ukrianians, and absolutely wanted to kill that idea forever. He wanted to make sure that we had as little in common with them as possible, so that none of "them" would be able to pray or sing in our Catholic Churches, and none of "our people" would be able to pray or sing in their Orthodox Churches. My priest said this bishop had a lot of bad experiences with the Orthodox when he was growing up.

My priest said there is still a bishop who hates things that look "Orthodox" and so he really wants a non-Orthdox looking Liturgy. The idea that we 'share' a common tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox makes him see red.

He wants to take the Church in a separate direction that means that we will never ever be able to work with the Ukrainians, he says they're a different Rite. But if we have the same books, he can't really say that.

There was some talk that all Greek Catholics (Byzantine, Ukrainian, Melkite) might someday form a single national American Greek Catholic Church, after the old generation who spoke the old languages passed on. But one bishop hated the very idea of working together with them, and just laughs at the idea of cooperating.

But the most important thing he wants is to make our books so 'non-Orthodox' that no Orthodox Church would even ever want to use them. And if our people get used to a more Catholic Liturgy they'd be lost if they visit an Orthodox Church, and they won't be able to pray or feel comfortable there.

My priest said that there is still a bishop in our Church who hates the idea that we share a tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox, and he is using this New Liturgy to make sure that isn't true, and to make sure it never happens. The New Liturgy is going to be marketed as inclusive and up to date, but the real but unspoken agenda, is to make sure that Ukrianians and Orthodox are not welcome in our Churches and vice versa.

If this is true, it might explain why people are arguing so much about Greek words. It's not really about the words at all, it's about our future, and the future of Byzantine Catholics in America.

Isn't it time we grew up, and got over all those old fights? If that is really what this is all about, I think it is pretty sad.

Helen

The name of the place in Pittsburgh is Russka Dolina and the name of the Bishop is Andrew, and he chairs the liturgical committee in the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and he squashes orthodox and strongly ethnic parishes and people. Dear God, when are we going to stop hiding and running from it?

It is time he and the Church get over it.

Lord have mercy!

Eli

Helen I dont think you should be quoting your priest so closely with "he saids". He may get into trouble having spoken to you in private conversation. You have now told the whole planet

Politics in the Church are not signs of imaturity (although individuals may be) but reflects the reality of life. Different traditions are just that and people are attached to them and are studying them. I cant see any of them being so keen to loose theirs for some standardisation. Co-operation should be happening among Catholics I agree.

It will be fine Pavel. The bishop in question would be hard pressed to harm Helen's parish priest.

It's time we stop hiding the thorns in our collective side.

Bishop Pataki as a younger man and priest was booed in a public courtroom. It has haunted him for decades and who knows the collatoral damage done over the years by the hurt and bitterness that resulted.

Bishop Andrew is nearly 80 years old. He needs our love and our prayers and we need to be able to breathe easily as a Church which is Orthodox in communion with Rome.

It will be all right. Really it will.

Eli

It's been known for some time that the Bishop behind the "NEW" Liturgy is Bishop Andrew. His Grace chairs both commissions on the Archeparcial level, and yes his dislike for the Orthodox and Ukrainian is well known. Ultimately, what can you do if an Archbishop and two other Bishops won't stand up and do the right thing?

We have talked about this but not all in one place. Canonically the other two bishops AND the archbishop's hands are tied in terms of doing anything official, and so rather than tear the Church apart, there are certain accommodations struck. That is the only other way short of serious confrontation.

It seems reasonable to suggest that somebody in Rome is supportive of Bishop Andrew and so his influence remains dominant in the Metropolia.

There are many things that will forever be hidden but there are some things that yield to educated guess and best understanding given what is possible and reasonable to know even second hand.

On the other hand we could have a Metropolitan who was willing to behave like an Archbishop Major and simply tell Rome and any recalcitrant bishop to go ahead and go their own way and lead the rest down a path of growth, light and life.

That is possible to do in practice. I doubt Rome would step in and try to squash that kind of behavior as long as it was not a direct and serious challenge and did not erupt into outright war.

Archbishop Basil, and perhaps for good reason, has not chosen that direct a path as yet.

But there is no easy answer here to any of this except to shine as much light into the darkness as possible as often as possible and to pray.

Eli

If this is true, ( and I said if ) how sad it is that one man's negative animus towards a race would get us in the situation of a feminist and chopped up liturgy that we face now. Actually, how sad that anyone would have hatred towards a race.

Quote

He wants to take the Church in a separate direction that means that we will never ever be able to work with the Ukrainians, he says they're a different Rite. But if we have the same books, he can't really say that.

They are a different rite. But they are our Greek Catholic brethern period, and there never should have been a separation in the first place. Once again, beyond sad and shame if this is true.

Quote

And if our people get used to a more Catholic Liturgy they'd be lost if they visit an Orthodox Church, and they won't be able to pray or feel comfortable there.

mission accomplished. The way the majority of the BCA practices this is well on it way to fruition.

Quote

My priest said that there is still a bishop in our Church who hates the idea that we share a tradition with the Ukrainians or the Orthodox, and he is using this New Liturgy to make sure that isn't true, and to make sure it never happens. The New Liturgy is going to be marketed as inclusive and up to date, but the real but unspoken agenda, is to make sure that Ukrianians and Orthodox are not welcome in our Churches and vice versa.

If true, shame, shame shame.

Quote

Isn't it time we grew up, and got over all those old fights? If that is really what this is all about, I think it is pretty sad.

yes, how sad indeed.

Of course H.B. Metroplotian Basil is NOT a Major Archbishop.

If all is true, I'd leave the BCC today and request membership in the UGCC.

Shh....don't tell DJS!

Dear Helen,

First, please accept my thanks! I am naturally pleased that you have read my book with such careful attention. I am even more pleased that you were not put off by the Greek and Church-Slavonic words (which I had to supply in criticizing the translation).

Further, it is encouraging that your Pastor (whose name I don�t know, so I can�t tell if by chance I know this good Priest personally, although from your description and experience he would appear to be someone well worth knowing) did not attempt to stop you from reading the book, and was willing to respond with honesty to your questions after you had read it. Clearly this Priest knows the value of aware, educated and commited lay people in his parish.

As I have written here on the Forum (cf. my last posting on the �Books� section), it is entirely possible that Father David Petras is correct in his repeated insistence that he is not personally responsible for the whole of the draft which I have criticized. The issue, in any case, is not the person of Father David, but the recasting and the translation of the Divine Liturgy. That said, it is intriguing that Father David would feel obligated to defend that which he does not agree with � as an intellectual exercise this seems a strange thing to do. It also seems risky; surely it would be better for someone who supports whatever the specific point might be to defend that point.

In saying that I only told part of the history � and that I did not bring it fully up to date � your Pastor has told you the truth. Part of the reason has to do with the purpose of the book; my goal was to present that part of the history which had direct bearing on the liturgical crisis, to put the crisis in its historical context (as the title of chapter 2 indicates). Incidentally, I should have added a paragraph or two about the disagreement concerning the service of matrimony � this took place in the late nineteen-sixties or the very early nineteen-seventies.

It is certainly imprudent to attack people while they are still alive (and therefore presumably able to reciprocate!). But I was not out to attack anyone personally. It is not the direct fault of Bishop Basil Takach that he became serious ill during World War II and could no longer function effectively. Bishop Daniel Ivancho was well thought of despite the Achilles heel of his marital situation and in general I wrote favourably about him. Bishop Nicholas Elko was a man of very strong convictions where liturgical matters were concerned; I could wish that his readiness to stand up to his opponents had been given to a better cause. Meanwhile he certainly had some good points, one of which is that he worked tirelessly to raise the level of general Catholic awareness of the presence of Byzantine Catholics in America. The manner of his removal was shabby, to say the least. It should be obvious from the book that his liturgical agenda was and is abhorrent to me, even though I have some idea of what was behind it.

The book is carefully written to preclude a possible criticism that I was out to attack individuals (Bishops, clergy, religious or laity) who might be considered responsible for the 2004 draft. The reason, as you can understand, is that the book is written to discuss issues, not personalities. Bishop X, Father Y or even Father Serge will in due course be judged by Almighty God; meanwhile writing a book to judge any or all of them on a personal basis would not be a proper thing to do (although a good friend of mine has more than once suggested that someday someone will write a learned book �proving� that I never existed!). Like others in the field, I do my poor best to contribute to our knowledge of the Liturgy and of issues related to the Liturgy.

Your Pastor is indisputably right: the argument isn�t about words or translations so much as it is about two (or more) conflicting visions of the Church � Father Taft has made the same point. It cannot be otherwise, since the Liturgy is by far the most important thing we have and the most important thing we do. Abusing the Liturgy so as to contradict the Catholic understanding of our Church is reprehensible in the extreme � but there are still those who maintain a quite different vision of the Church, so it is necessary to be �patiently adamant�. That expression looks like a contradiction in terms, but it isn�t! As for abusing the Liturgy in pursuit of an ethnic agenda � that only has to be stated to be perceived as downright sinful.

It wasn�t just a matter of refusing to cooperate with the Ukrainians in producing a common English translation. The Orthodox community which is now the Orthodox Church in America also approached the Ruthenian Church with a serious proposal to produce a common English translation of the Divine Liturgy and other liturgical books. This too was rejected out of hand.

Speaking sociologically one could reasonably say that this is the inevitable result of a purely negative self-identification of an ethno-religious community (this Church is not Ukrainian, this Church is not Orthodox, this Church is Catholic but not in the sense of doing what the Catholic Church asks it to do . . . etc.).

I could offer a long string of quotations from Popes, Vatican II, and so on calling for the opposite approach � but some of the quotes are already in the book. If you want more, here I am, at your service.

There were plenty of bad experiences between Orthodox and Greek-Catholics in the USA in the first half of the twentieth century; anyone who wants to tell horror stories along that line does not lack for material. For that matter, there were plenty of bad experiences between Irish Roman Catholic hierarchs in the USA and Greek-Catholics from the moment that the first Greek-Catholic Priest arrived in Shenandoah. In both cases, of course, the horror stories have grown in the telling, but there is still truth to it (Archbishop John Ireland of Minneapolis-Saint Paul, whose misconduct brought on the first major departure of Greek-Catholics for Russian Orthodox in America, treated the Irish themselves no better, believe it or not � again it was a question of his vision of the Church in the USA; in that vision there was no room either for Eastern Catholics or for Irish Catholics who were �peasants� and whose native language was Irish � so he dumped an entire trainload of people from Connemara on empty fields in mid-winter in northern Minnesota and left them there, presumably to die of cold and hunger at their own convenience).

Hatred of another Church, another ethnic group, or even hatred of one�s own ethnic group (it happens � one of the leading members of Hitler�s regime was Jewish) is no acceptable basis for any form of Christianity � and if the grievances are real, as is sometimes the case, we are under orders from Our Lord to forgive our enemies. That is yet another reason to discuss issues, not personalities.

Yes, it is high time to get over all this. Aside from the obvious religious mandate to cut out the hatreds, we can�t afford them in the face of dwindling attendance, dwindling vocations and dwindling financial support. Serious cooperation right now, and serious striving for a united Greek-Catholic Church in the USA are needed, not fighting the battles of a lifetime ago.

Again, my thanks to you and my fraternal appreciation to your Pastor. May God bless you and your parish.

Fr. Serge Keleher

THAT could be your problem right there, if that is true it has proven to be a toxic relationship ripe for reform.

According to reports here Bishop Nicholas wanted to work with the BCC on common liturgy and books!

That is precious! What a blessing from heaven, what a gesture of fraternal grace! The hierarchy really failed us, Orthodox and Catholics alike when they allowed that opportunity to slip by. They failed the Body Of Christ when they missed that chance.

+T+
Michael

How very sad, unchristian and disgraceful to the Body of Christ. Lord have mercy on us!

Now, the question is how do we get past this sordid past and get our act together to reevangelize ourselves, so we can evangelize others?

How will the new Liturgy help advance the Gospel in the context of our authentic Eastern Christian spirituality? I don't see how.

AMEN to this!

For God's sake, it is 2006 and we are dying as a church. How can one leader be so narrow minded, choosing to kill off his church rather than heal the wounds of the past? What kind of Christianity is this?

With all due respect to Fr K, I've missed some information here. What is the title of this book and where can one purchase it?

Sam

Sam,

Check the books forum. All the information is there.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+