www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Proposal: discontinue the revised liturgy topic

I may be wasting my time by saying this, but I think the topic "The Revised Divine Liturgy" has outlived its usefulness. I am proposing that it be discontinued for now, because it is serving to provide an alternative channel for venting of frustrations over issues that are beyond the control of most Forum participants instead of providing solutions to real concerns.

Closing threads and editing posts has become altogether too common within the topic, because of the seemingly contentious nature of the topic itself. Even the best of efforts is met with little resolution.

Finally, I might suggest as an alternative that the topic could be reopened AFTER a revised liturgy is introduced for the purpose of discussing it, etc. In the meantime, the topic is not working out well because of fundamental disagreements about decisions that are not within the control of the Forum. Time to stop.

Jim,

I have to say that maybe you are wasting your time. Yet, many people here on this forum have very strong feelings that cut to the core of their spiritual life and without any outlet. When some thing effects their spiritual life it takes a toll on them in many ways. I certainly disagree with your assessment in regard to this among many things.

The amount of edits, deletions or closures in this section have been minimal compared to let's say another forum that is under other moderation. If you need case in point I will link a thread that was going earlier in the year bringing about just this point.

The liturgy is the core and apex of the corporate worship of the church, not a performance for a select few. If there is no prayer, or people are too upset to pray, then you what do have? Maybe if enough people vent, it may bring about a stronger church were the faithful and the clergy are heard as to their prayer. This church then can begin to grow instead of shrinking.

If the posts and threads are not to your liking, no one is forcing you to respond to them. You do not need to post in this section if that is the case. There are many threads that I do not respond to on this forum in other sections, because to myself they are not to my liking or the subject is not important to me.

Stifling dissent or criticism is not the way to make the church grow, but is a way to destroy it. So in answer to your initial post and after a quick phone call to the administrator, the answer to your post is that this section will not be closed, but rather continue to be a place for discussion as intended.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Yeah, right. That's like saying "Vote me into office, and I'll tell you my platform once I'm elected". The overwhelming majority of posts on this forum are opposed to changing the Divine Liturgy. Feeble attempts at stifling dissent will not make it go away, rather make it grow stronger.

Just my 2 kopechki

Alexandr

Thank you, Father Anthony, for a sensible response. Since the sensum fidei has essentially been ignored, perhaps this is one of the few media available to actually test it. Historically there were many who also told the Fathers such St. John Chrysostom in their time to desist in dissent - or that it was a waste of time.

And brat' Alexandr, ne dvi kopechki - it is worth far more than that.
FDD

Jim,

According to that line of thinking, very little should be discussed in the world since so much falls outside our sphere of our immediate influence or control.

I have learned much by participating in this dialogue, even from those with whom I disagree. And if you read the history of the councils, protests and open disagreement are very much part of the Byzantine tradition. It may not appeal to everyone's temperment, but it demonstrates that at least in certain sectors there are those of us who care enough to disagree, even with the hierarchy in their prudential decisions.

This is both the lesson of Church history and, in a particular way, Vatican II. Heaven help us all if we return to a "pray, pay and obey" thelogy of the laity.

Blessings,

Gordo

Anyone who thinks we're nit-picking should have been with me a few years ago. I was visiting a certain bishop who will here by nameless, and was startled to discover that the clergy were having quite a free-for-all on the burning issue of whether there should or should not be a comma at some particular place in the Nicene Creed!

Fr. Serge

Well, Fr. Anthony, frankly, many posters appear to be more interested in flexing their debate technique muscles than in arriving at consensus. Prayer, fasting, and alms giving can make a greater difference, now and in the long run.

I sympathize with you, Jim, and feel the same way about the endless discussions of the "Traditional Latin Mass". But what are you gonna do? Some people just enjoy arguing. Better they do it online instead of in person, with weapons.

Jim,

I am going to be very direct in what I am about to say in regards to your above statement, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". You have just as much to blame in these debates as other posters. Apparently your idea of a debate is that all agree with your point, and those who dissent are then cantankerous. That is not a debate, but rather a dictatorial mandate.

You quote that you will be fasting, praying and giving alms, and that is an excellent idea and I pray that you will be able to fulfill it. That is probably the first spiritual idea that you have expressed in all the posts in this section.

I stand by my earlier post, and if you disagree, that is your right. But if you will read the posts that followed mine, yours in a minority view as to what you have proposed. Therefore the decision stands and that is it as far as I am concerned.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Just out of curiosity though - and I'm serious because I don't know the answer - but when the liturgy was previous revised 40+ years ago, were the faithful consulted? And was there any controversy about those changes?

The reason I ask is that so many of the people protesting this new revision are saying "why don't we leave it the way it's been for the past 40 years?" so I'm wondering, if they'd been around 40 years ago, and heard the rumors of a revised liturgy on the way, would they have been OK with it then?

All my burned out brain cells remember from forty years ago was being told the liturgy was about to change, practice sessions will be held for so many Sundays and we would begin using the new version ("revision"?) on such and such a day.
The people then listened to tapes, practiced the music and poof, there was a new Liturgy.

Theist Gal:

40 years ago the text published was a translation of the official Ruthenian Recension.

The present project is not a mere translation, but a revision of text and rubrics.

Forty years ago they were also not dealing with the introduction of politically correct "inclusive" language.

The only thing that is the same in both cases is that the bishops have not fully implemented the rubrics (directives in the official text) of the official Recension.

But there is again a difference here. In the 1965 edition the rubrics were printed in the book, but not fully followed. In the present revision, many of the rubrics and texts just disappear, while others are added.

So is there "One True Version" of the liturgy by which all liturgical changes must be measured? I'm just wondering, when you say that things are being improperly revised or dropped or added - what's the standard you're going by, and when was it decreed that this standard could never be changed?

The Ruthenian Recension is the official Vatican approved and promulgated version of the Divine Liturgy for Ruthenians and Ukrainians. It was produced in the 1940's. It is the equivalent of what Romans call a typical edition. It is the standard for text and rubrics. Father Serge is the expert here.

Changes may occur organically, responding to real needs and not by mere by the mere command of authorities. A particular Byzantine Church should not, without great need, attempt to revise the Liturgy unilaterally, apart from others who share the same tradition. Any changes should always be in genuine conformity to the principles of our Christian tradition, not the adoption of secularized or novel agendas.

And of course, the Ruthenian Recension was never formally promulgated across the Pittsburgh Archeparchy; the bishops were told to promulgate it, as I recall, and never QUITE did. (One "sort of" did, but with a pastoral "signing statement" that contained all manner of simplifications.) When texts were distributed, they contained the rubrics from the Ruthenian reform, but many priests have reported that they were told, explicitly or implicitly, that they were NOT to follow the new rubrics from Rome. The lack of a standard English translation for those churches covered by either of the two Roman recensions over the last 60 years hasn't helped either, of course.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski