www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Who is mandating the "revised" liturgy and rubrics?

"But is it not wrong for the Metropolia to go and tell the faithful that "Rome is mandating these changes"? This really is "hierarchical irresponsibility" to the fullest extend!"

You are jumping the gun, the Hierarchs have told the faithful nothing. People here are assuming that is what is going to be said. In any case however, if people are going to start writing Rome about a Liturgy they haven't even seen yet then I think it within the Hierarch's tights to remind the faithful that Rome did review and approve the Liturgy and did make some request of its own.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The priests have returned from their pastoral meetings with Metropolitan Basil. After liturgy on Sunday it was stated by a priest of the Metropolia that "Rome is mandating these changes".
Seems very clear to me.

Ungcsertezs

"The priests have returned from their pastoral meetings with Metropolitan Basil. After liturgy on Sunday it was stated by a priest of the Metropolia that "Rome is mandating these changes".
Seems very clear to me."

Well I was at the same meetings and at no time was it said Rome is mandating all these changes. It was said that Rome did mandate some of the changes and most of those delt with concessions Rome made to Bishop Daniel.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Rome doesn't make changes, "Sui Juris" Churches make the changes, Rome only approves changes. You would never hear Patriarch Lubomyr say things like "Rome has mandated that we do this and that."
Let our hierarchs take the responsibilty head on and not deflect blame to Rome.

Ungcseretzs

"a priest of the Metropolia"? or Metropolitan Basil?

When there is a written document stating the mandate and who is mandating, then we should start debating whether it is Rome or the Metropolitan making these changes. Otherwise we are all guilty of speculation based on second or third hand information which may not have been conveyed as intended.

Steve

"Rome doesn't make changes, "Sui Juris" Churches make the changes, Rome only approves changes. You would never hear Patriarch Lubomyr say things like Rome has mandated that we do this and that.
Let our hierarchs take the responsibilty head on and not deflect blame to Rome."


That is a pretty naive statement considering Rome still appoints our bishops and had to review, make changes to, and approve our particular law before it was promulgated. What makes everyone around here so convinced it is any different with our Liturgy which Rome changed (form the Lviv 1905 Liturgikon) and approved back in the 40s? The need to have a scapegoat other than Rome since some Orthodox don't like the changes?

Fr. Deacon Lance

The bottom line is Rome can't mandate, so don't say things like Rome has mandated these changes for a "Sui Juris" Eastern Catholic Particular Church, period! To say it any other way is incorrect.

Ungcsertezs

"The bottom line is Rome can't mandate, so don't say things like Rome has mandated these changes for a "Sui Juris" Eastern Catholic Particular Church, period! To say it any other way is incorrect."

Rome can't mandate? Please get a hold of reality. Read the CCEO. The way a Metropolitan Sui Iuris Church functions in relation to Rome is little different than how a Latin diocese does. Why do you think we have to submit everything we do to Rome in the first place. If we were really autocephalous we would simply do as we please and not have to submit things for review. Rome mandated changes to our particualr law, it can certainly do so for the Liturgikon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If that is true, then Rome can go tell the Ukrainian Synod and Patriarch Lubomyr what to do liturgically, somehow I don't see that happening.

Ungcsertezs

They don't have to because they made the changes voluntarily. But please note Archbishop Lubomyr is still waiting for Rome to erect his patriarchate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What were the concessions that Rome made to Bishop Daniel?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the edition of the ORDO CELEBRATIONIS (1944)published by Eastern Christian Publications in 1996, you will find Bishop Daniel's letter to the Oriental Congregation on pg. 116; you will find the response of the S.O.C. to Bp. Daniel on p.120.

You can order the ORDO CELEBRATIONIS from E.C.P., POB 146, Fairfax, VA, 22030.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Somehow, I doubt Bishop Daniel
requested INCLUSIVE language.
Who is the Modernist that did?

"Somehow, I doubt Bishop Daniel
requested INCLUSIVE language.
Who is the Modernist that did?"

I did not say he did. It was stated that Rome cannot or did not mandate any of the changes. Rome did in fact make some of them, which only makes sense since Rome was the one who allowed concessions from the Liturgikon and Ordo in the first place.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The 10 concession made by Rome to Bishop Daniel were:

1. The priest and deacon could omit kissing the icons in their prepartory prayers.

2. The priest could bless the offerings with the Sign of the Cross at the preparation.

3. In the absence of a deacon the priest could omit censing the apsidal icon and icons within the altar.

4. The royal doors could remain open throughout the Liturgy.

5. In litanies the petition for the Pope could be joined with that for the hierachs.

6. The censing of the Gospel could be anticipated during the Epistle.

7. The "Peace be with all" before the Gospel could be omitted.

8. The mention of the civil authority could be omitted at the Great Entrance.

9. The Prayer before Communion that was in use could continue. (It was/is different than the one published in the Liturgikon.)

10. The ablutions could be performed during the singing of "May our lips be filled..."

Biwshop Daniel asked for 13 other concessions that were not granted.

Only 4 and 9 have been retained in the revised Liturgy.

Fr. Deacon Lance