www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Download the New Liturgy!

Where does he get the idea of an abrogation of the 1941 Slavonic edition? (cf the note of Father Petras that I psoted for Nec.) I still don't understand his idea of "rite". Does he consider Melkites etc. to be Byzantine rite? Does he mean recension rather than rite?

I would like for someone who has knowledge of the canon law books for the Eastern churches to comment on the matters of our rights as a sui juris church.

Dave:

Thanks for the link to the ACROD liturgical text!

The language has many differences from the 1988 pew book that I have. I wonder: were these changes met with resistance?

I note the antiphons are taken as in our new edition, with the possible exception that if the parish does not take the Beatitudes, there is no third psalm-antiphon. Is this just a permissible abbreviation - do some/many/most parishes take three verses? Or all of the verses of the psalm?

Ditto on the omitted litanies.

Can you comment on whether this edition has the status of a pew book or a liturgikon? Is this considered a departure from the Byzantine rite?

Finally, I notice that, as in the 1988 pew book, uses "children of God" in the Beatitudes. Do you know how this came about?

djs

Actually, as your post reveals, it is different. What is the analog of the factions that you mention - the vostochniks and the Latinizers? If there are factions who are united in opposition, but for very different reasons, what makes you think that broader participation would have led to a product of which both factions would take ownership?

Administrator: I am sorry to hear about the tenor of discussion among the clergy - whatever informs your opinion of it. But it helps put in perspective the balance struck by the IELC. Since you think our clergy won't obey this call for this minimum standard, why would they heed a call for a higher minimal standard? What is your objective?

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I am left wondering - how many antiphon verses constitutes an acceptable abbreviation versus butchery? And prokimenon verses? And alleluia verses? Do you call the ACROD liturgy a butchery? What about Greek Orthodox?

Maybe the idea of a Carptho-Rusyn rescension, mentioned on another thread, is one to discuss. The new edition and the ACROD text posted by Dave have very much in common. When did these practices originate? In what sense are they "traditional"? In what sense, if any, are they "illegitimate"?

It has been mentioned that the 1942 Slavonic edition was put together in Rome at the request of our Bishops. Which of our Bishops were part of this request? What was the response of Presov and Uzhhorod?

Here's something to consider from Lemko Rusyn in an old discussion of "Principles of Eastern liturgical reform and renewal".

Was an understanding of "Subcarpathian Ruthenian Church did" part of what happened in the Roman analysis? Has it informed our IELC?

I never suggested that everyone � or even most � in both groups would take ownership if they were involved. I�ve been very consistent in noting that the older clergy are the most unlikely to make a change. There is nothing that can be done with some in this group and they probably should be left alone until they retire.

People don�t like change. There are some who will embrace change because they evaluate it and see that it is good. Some don�t care and will go with the crowd. But most resist any change. The only way to garner their support is to make them enthusiastic for the change. Often the only way to do that is to include them in the process that produces the change. Someone who participates in the development of a product is far more likely to take ownership and be enthusiastic then someone who has not been part of the process. I spend about 6 weeks a year traveling to teach system administrators and users how to use a very complex software product. I have found that the worst thing you can do is to talk through a PowerPoint presentation (b-o-r-i-n-g!). The best method is always to put the sys admins in front of a computer screen so that they can experience first hand what the product we are designing for them offers them. When you then take good feedback and incorporate it into the next generation of the product you often earn life long support for anything you do. When they go back to others in their groups they carry with them a sense of ownership. That generates enthusiasm (or at least cooperation).

I can offer an example of this from my own very positive experience in the Church. Twenty-five years ago I began publishing liturgical music. Twenty years ago I started publishing weekly handouts. I never forced it upon anyone. From the beginning I regularly asked everyone who used anything I published to look for the mistakes and offer suggestions for improvement. I have had a lot of great feedback over the years and I believe my openness to having people tell me about my mistakes and responding in a serious way to the suggestions they have offered are � after the great quality of the product � a large part of why over 200 parishes subscribe to my various publications. Such inclusiveness must be real. It can�t be faked because people will see through any fakery.

In the case of the Liturgy you need to build goodwill by first addressing the issues both groups would likely agree to. Almost every priest uses the 1965/1965 text. If we first identified the obvious mistakes (i.e., a saints name mistranslated here, etc.) there would be no great opposition to those changes. Priests would take pen to their Liturgicons to make the corrections. Then � over time - you can put together a scholarly treatise that can be used to solicit feedback (envision for each issue a 5 page discussion of the problem in the current text, possible alternatives, and why one alternative should be chosen over the others). Not a vote but real participation. Then continue the process with more participation at each level until the really difficult issues arise. Once you reach that point you will very likely have generated a much higher level of enthusiasm for the change then if you had ignored those most involved then if you had excluded them from the process and presented them with a final product and a mandate. You won�t attract everyone.

Then look at the rubrics. Put aside for the moment a discussion of changing anything away from the Ruthenian recension and consider for purposes of example a fuller embracement of the 1942 Liturgy. Use the same process as above. Don�t just mandate that priests stop using pre-cut particles but give them material that shows them why the traditional way is better. Do a 5 page summary giving the liturgical theology on the issue. And don�t forget to include the practical stuff like how to bake prosphora that doesn�t crumble into little pieces when the priest tries to cut it. Make it familiar and desirable. Only then does it have a chance to be embraced by those open to change.

I could go on. Include with liturgical explanation of why all the litanies are necessary the very practical aid they are to good liturgy. They offer the worshiper a brief respite to consider what has come before and to prepare for what is to come. They give the deacon and priest the chance to pray their prayers. They prime the singing pump because they are so easy to sing. They offer the chanters a chance to get on track and stay on track whenever something goes flat.

So, no, you will never get everyone on board. But by including everyone involved in the process you will get many more to embrace the change.

The higher you set the standard the more likely larger numbers of people are going to reach for it and hit it.

When it was the standard by Catholics to fast from meat on Fridays not everyone did. But a lot more hit the standard (or came close to it) than happens now that abstaining from meat can essentially be replaced by an act of charity. The lowering of the standard in this case led to an almost abolishment of the standard.

In the liturgy if all the litanies were expected as the norm it is far more likely that those opposed to litanies will take one or more of them than it is if only one or two were mandated (in which case they probably wouldn�t take any!). [I�m not talking about the immovable group described above � they�re not going to change at all.]

Clergy and laity who attend Divine Liturgies where the fullness of the recension is celebrated, Liturgies that are also well sung and prayerful, will see that there is something there they want. It is a way forward in all situations. It will not generate enthusiasm from everyone but raising the standard always results in a better �product�.

I always remember the example of Bishop Michael of Passaic. As bishop he certainly did not celebrate the fullness of the Ruthenian recension. But he did greatly raise the standard of Liturgy in Passaic to a level that was much higher than the other eparchies. He did it mainly by his example and the expectations that example set.

Reprint the current Liturgicon with only the needed corrections. Engage in a multi-year (and maybe even generational) process of slowly raising the standard. If what Bishop Daniel had begun had been continued very slowly (even if only taught in the seminary) we would be there by now. It�s not too late to start!

I am glad to assume a more positive outlook. Maybe there is less antagonism and more possiblility of comity our priests - vostochniks and latinizers (and even young and old) - than might be inferred from your earlier post.

Last night I talked with a friend of mine who is a priest in the Johnstown Diocese.. He noted that Metropolitan Nicholas begun a process that will slowly raise the standard of Liturgy in that diocese. I do not know if Met. Nicholas will use the 1942 Liturgy as the eventual standard but it will be interesting to see what happens. He did offer one interesting point. The priests that use (or have used) the Byzantine Seminary Press 1964/1965 Liturgicon had far �higher� liturgies than those who used one of the several �homemade� Liturgicons.

The books should be as identical as possible to the official books of the Ruthenian recension � except in traditional standard American English.

Perhaps Father Serge can give us the details. I know that all or nearly all of the bishops of the Churches that make up the current Ruthenian recension together made the request to Rome. This included Bishop Basil of Pittsburgh.

I also know that Blessed Theodore (Romzha) printed the 1942 Liturgicon for use by his priests. I don�t know how close he and his priests came to following the rubrics. The influence of the official books upon the Liturgy as celebrated in Europe during the War, and later under the Communist oppressors would be a worthy topic for a book!

One could almost claim that the Ruthenian recension is merely the Russian recension with a number of at-the-time existent older customs sprinkled in. Some have argued that there should not really be a Ruthenian recension. They may be correct and new scholarship might someday determine this. It wouldn�t be that we are all Russians, just that the differences are truly too small for a separate recension. I am waiting for a good comparison of the Ruthenian and Russian recension to the 1639 Mohyla Liturgicon.

There is a lot of work to do before anyone can consider changing the standard.

I have no control over what you infer from what you read on the Forum.

Your nature seems to be one that seeks out discordant inferences and positions. Might I suggest that you stop inferring and concluding the worst about everything? You seem more interested in attacking and calling all those who disagree with you �chaff� than you are in building up the Church. I am very positive about the possibilities for our Church and say so continually. Why don�t you consider becoming a builder instead of a critic?

Other than the change from "bishop whom
God loves" back to "God-loving bishop", does anyone know what changes were made after the printing of the draft that has beem linked from this thread?

Dear Michael,
I don't know - but since what is presumably the "post-final draft" was produced in early June 2005, it's surely time that it was made public!

Fr Serge

I'm left wondering, how many do they use in your parish?

If these were reduced in a revised Liturgy book, how would you feel?

Nick