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

Father Deacon,

While I have enjoyed watching this exchange, I am going to have to point out that you are misleading readers in one of the above statements. The statements you quoted in your post previous to the one quoted are of a minority among the Slavic Orthodox Churches. While they represent those opinons of some of the faculty that have taught at Saint Vladimir's Seminary and even at Saint Serge Institute in Paris, they are directly opposed to the statements issued not only by ROCOR, but the Patriarchate of Moscow, whose combined clergy and faithful significantly outnumber the advocates you cited. Even among the OCA, this is not the majority opinion, and is definitely not represented in the regular liturgical life of that Church as indicated in their liturgical books.

I believe that this is not the first time that this point has had to be addressed with you as far misrepresenting what is the majority view and liturgical norm of the Slavic Orthodox Churches.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Fr. Anthony,

I am misleading noone as I have never said the quoted material was the opinion of the majority. It is the opinion of those quoted. What I find misleading are those who deny or downplay that at least some in Orthodox Church have recognized the need for liturgical reform or if they do concede it said persons are labelled un-Orthodox, etc.

I do find it significant that the Russian Synod looked at the question of liturgical reform and many hierachs, including canonized ones, considered some of the very things my Metropolia is doing/may do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

With all due respect you seem to always respond to the issue under discussion by changing the subject.

The idea that some have spoken to reform has nothing to do with the fact that it is not up to our local Byzantine Church to reform, since our orders from Rome are to renew and restore according to the offical books.

Do you have any comments on the article?

John

John,

How posting a relevant aricle to the subject in question is changing the subject I do not know.

But in dealing with the article, I think Fr. reardon is criticizing the Worship of Pentecostals or possibly disobediant Latin Catholics.

I agree with:

"Correct ("orthodox") worship is not the uninformed, spontaneous outpouring of human activity, and the worshiper must be on guard against identifying his personal impulses with the agency of the Holy Spirit. Undisciplined, off-the-cuff people are far more likely to act under the impulse of suspect and impure spirits than under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, mere spontaneity and a "sense of fulfillment" in worship are neither adequate nor reliable indications of the agency of the Holy Spirit.

David perceived that correct worship is not chiefly concerned with meeting the religious needs and aspirations of human beings, but with the glory of God, which is inseparable from his holiness. The fundamental ground of true worship is not the religious nature of man, but the glorious manifestation of God. Indeed, any worship that is not a response to God's self-revelation must of necessity be idolatrous, the worship of something that man himself creates from the resources of his own religious nature."

However, one can also depart from the orthodox path by making an idol of form. One can perform the Liturgy exactly according to rubrics, but if it is done so that one can say: "Look I did everything exactly according to the book" rather than in a spirit of true worship it means nothing.
And this is exactly what many communist infiltrators who became priests did. Excellent Liturgy but they did't belive a wrod of it.

I fear some people care more about rubrics than the essence of the Litrugy which is giving thanks to God by offering our gifts to God that He may Change them into Christ's Body and Blood that we may in turn receive them. How can I help but feel that way when I see posts about how people can't stand Liturgy becasue there are no curtains on the icon screen?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

I also find it very interesting that these hierarchs and saints mentioned examined these questions, yet when brought before the full synod of hierachs or All-Russian Council, the governing bodies rejected these proposals. Just because some thought there may be a need for revision or change in the past does not mean that the Church thought it was necessary, and has rejected them time and time again.

Yes, it is misleading when when you constantly refer to the minority opinion, it makes some believe that it is the prevalent attitude and opinion in the Orthodox Church today. Schmemann, Meyendorf and other though being profound teachers of an era, were not the prevalent voice in Orthodox Liturgical practice.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

That is very simple to determine, and not a problem at all.

We must look to the official books of the Ruthenian Recension as published in Rome. Any other option will never be acceptable, or accepted.

Just as you advocate preserving the melodies of Boksaj, whole and entire; I say it is MUCH more important, to preserve our Liturgy, whole and entire. Why aren't we allies in this? Do you see an inconsistency in your viewpoint?

Nick

Dear Nick,

The Roman books were prepared and published PRECISELY because there were profound disagreements about what our tradition WAS - whether it was to be the liturgy was handed on from the immediately preceding generation, or whether we were to look farther back or with a different viewpoint. Right now we're in just the opposite situation; you and John seem to be arguing for keeping the traditions of the generation just past (or at least an idealized version that unfortunately never took root in most of our parishes), while Father David argues for a return to much older traditions, such as hearing the priestly prayers chanted aloud. There is a certain irony in this as well.

I would agree completely with the idea that the bishops should promulgate the 1944 Ordo and a literal English translation of the Roman books. But remember that those books DO involve a break with tradition - a break which probably caused our bishops NOT to use them as they were intended. To some extent, BOTH those for and against change in the present moment need to look toward the goal, rather than slamming each other. (E.g. our moderator has in the past come out STRONGLY against a newer text of the Pre-sanctified Liturgy - though my own research suggested it was much closer to the Roman text than what we had been using.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. By the way, I have NEVER been against using the Roman books, and used many of their readings to correct the Uniontown books in the preparation of Vespers and Matins materials for the MCI.

Father Deacon,

I�m sorry, but I don�t see how a discussion about specific revisions that were proposed, discussed and rejected by the Russian Church is relevant to a discussion about the holiness of Liturgy and the need to renew and restore.

I�ve heard the argument that those who support restoration of our official Liturgy as directed by Rome are making an idol of form. I don�t buy it. In exactly what way has Orthodoxy made an idol out of form? Prove your case. We can see that throughout history Byzantine Orthodoxy has examined proposals for change (and rejected most of them). We can see examples of where true organic change has been embraced and made it into the official books (the new Greek custom of proclaiming the Resurrection Gospel at the doors of the temple at Pascha Matins is one example; the extension of the Paschal Antiphons to all Sundays of the year and thus replacing the �Daily Antiphons� is one specific to the Ruthenians). There is all kind of evidence to effectively demonstrate that those seeking restoration before even considering reform are not making idols of form.

The whole part of your post about �Look I did everything exactly according to the book� to the end doesn�t mean anything. Are you somehow suggesting that those of us who wish to follow Rome�s directives to renew and restore and keep the official standard are the equivalent of the communist infiltrators? That we follow the form but are not really believers? Your account of your visit to a certain parish whose Holy Week liturgical celebrations are hosted on this website suggest that you don�t really believe that. So what you are doing is presenting something that is possible with any set of rubrics and than suggesting that it somehow applies only to those of us who are trying to restore and keep the standard given to us by Rome, the standard we share with others. If anything it is those who seek to prohibit the official Liturgy who are overly concerned with rubrics. They are the ones refusing to embrace the official Liturgy and allow it to form us.

Why are those seeking revision so adamantly opposed to celebrating the Liturgy we have received as it has been handed down to us?

John

Jeff,

Yes, the Roman books were produced because there was a disagreement about what our tradition was. Now we have them. They have not taken root because there was a whole generation of bishops who would not allow them to take root. Now we have another generation of bishops who do not want to follow them and allow them to take root. In what way is this a failing of the Liturgy? It seems to me that this is a failing of our bishops. It is a disobedience of the bishops to the larger Church. We know that the official tradition does work.

I can�t speak for Nicholas (whose posts far surpass those of any other poster). I most certainly have not argued for traditionalism. I have argued merely for the restoration of the Liturgy in its official form, one that is the standard which we share with others, one that contributes to the unity of the Church. Keeping official standards and working with the entire Church to enact any change is not traditionalism.

Father David certainly has a right to argue for change. I don�t deny him that right and he certainly knows more about liturgical history then I ever will. But he is not arguing for a return to much older traditions. He is arguing for specific customs from history that he has picked because he likes them.

1. Again, principled disagreement is not slamming. Please stop attempting to stop the discussion by claiming that that people are slamming one another. The tactic of �You hurt me when you disagree with me why do you hate me?� is not a legitimate style of debate.

2. Your accusation that I reject an accurate edition of the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy is incorrect and with merit. Please re-read what I have written on this subject. I have argued the following:

A. The Levkulic edition was a very successful pastoral re-implementation of the Presanctified to our parishes. It was, however, incomplete.

B. Our Church should now produce a new edition of the Presanctified that is identically faithful to the Roman edition (or, for pastoral reasons, maybe two editions over 20 years that get to the official standard).

C. Our Church should not introduce rubrics that are not in the official standard (like the arbitrary assignment of specific psalms to specific weekdays and the moving of Ephrem�s Prayer (which is not in the official book) from the middle of the service to before the service).

D. The newer versions that have been introduced are incorrect to the Roman editions and should be withdrawn and edited to be identically faithful to the Roman edition. [This would not be a huge task.]

E. Parishes should be brought up over time to celebrate the full service.

I remind Jeff that I do not oppose and never have opposed any change that supports restoration. What I oppose are the additional, personal likes and dislikes of those preparing the editions that take us away from the official editions. I dislike the Parma and Passaic Presanctified books because they are not faithful enough.

But this is off topic. Jeff, do you have any comment on the article under discussion? It is about the authentic method of handing down Liturgy, not about (little "t") traditions.

John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear John,

As you have noted, what we are involved in is restoration. Unlike the Latins, we cannot simply say, "We want exactly what he had 50 years ago!' We have to say, "We want what we SHOULD have had 50 years ago" - and there is room for legitimate disagreement on how to get there. Your suggestion of, for example, two revisions of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts seems to admit this.

As Cathy noted, MANY of our parishes are not even up to the standard of the proposed liturgical text. Abbreviated as it is, it is STILL longer than many a liturgy I attended only ten years ago. It is altogether possible that the bishops intend this as a first step toward a restoration of the full-length liturgy. In the absence of a positive prohibition on using the omitted litanies, etc. this is no more a real problem than promulgating an abbreviated Presanctified Book.

Now, it is STILL a problem. But the accusations I have seen here that the bishops or those who are willing to allow them to lead "don't care", that they are "changing things just for the sake of changing things", or that they are "modernists", doesn't wash - even less so the idea that by promulgating official people's texts with parts that were formerly omitted, they are wasting time that should be spend elsewhere.

THAT is the sort of thing I meant by "slamming" - the use of prejudicial language in the absence of any evidence, and the personalizing and emotionalizing of what could be conducted as a reasonable discussion. Please note that I did NOT say I had been "hurt" - I haven't - nor that I think or claim anyone hates me; this is your spin on it, which has nothing to do with that I said, and I find it more of a deterrent to conversation than my insistence we stop insulting each other and talk instead about goals.

For the record, assigning psalms to days of the week CERTAINLY has a place in the Byzantine tradition. The discussion to which I alluded concerned a FUTURE Metropolia-wide book for the Pre-sanctified Gifts, which you (as I recall) objected if it would change the psalmody, because "the people have those memorized and will object". How can one possibly restore a full kathisma of the psalter if one can't even restore it in pieces? Or can one ONLY go from a few psalms to an entire set, with no intermediate step? Similarly, if a prayer is NOT in the official books, then appointing it before or after the service makes a great deal of sense.

I don't agree that my first post was off-topic. In arguing for a preservation of "what has been passed on to us", we HAVE to resolve the fact that we were GIVEN this restored Roman edition of our Liturgy, and we need to understand how it is related to what came before, and where we are going, and how and at what pace we can hope to get there.

Finally - having lived through the 1960's and 1970's in close contact with both Latin and Ruthenian churches, I have a hard time seeing the following aspects of the post-Vatican II Latin Rite changes in the proposed Ruthenian text of the Divine Liturgy:

1. The gross desacralization of the language. (The proposed Ruthenian text certainly does not particularly change the language of respectful approach to God, or significantly simplify the language.)

2. The replacement of prayers with entirely new texts. (There is nothing in the proposed text that begins to do what the changes to the Offertory prayers did in the Roman Rite, for example.)

3. Changes to the cycle of scripture, or to the liturgical year (except that the proposed book has texts for MORE of the sanctoral cycle than the old one)

Based on this, I think claims of "Novus-Ordo-ization" are less appropriate than claims our bishops are simply too timid in re-appropriating the tradition we OUGHT to be following.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,
Your post has agreeably surprised me. However, I must offer what I hope will be a positive set of criticisms:

First, assuming that the IELC and the hierarchs whom it represents are timidly reaching towards an eventual acceptance of the complete Ruthenian Recension (and one sees no evidence of this from the writings of the defenders of the commission), it would only be sensible to ask for some sort of timetable. Presuming a thirty-year period of consistent effort to reach that goal, when might we expect the restoration of the Icon-screen in those parishes that still do not have one, when might we expect the restoration of all three antiphons, when might we expect the restoration of which "litanies", and so on. This is not unreasonable, nor coercive - I am not suggesting that such a timetable is an utterly binding contract. But it would represent a serious commitment to accomplish this, not in never-never land, but in this Local Church and in a length of time such that at least some of us involved in this discussion might reasonably hope to live to see it.
Second, there is a serious need for a program of liturgical catechesis, explaining what the Ruthenian Recension is, how it came about, what changes it would involve, the object of the exercise, the ways in which this should deepen the understanding of the divine services in both the clergy and the faithful, and even the reasons for doing this in stages rather than all at once. That, I suggest, would make it significantly easier to obtain the genuine assent of clergy who at the moment feel imposed upon by a pointless act of coercion which demands obedience to disobedience.

Third, there should be an appreciative recognition for those clergy and parishes who succeed in implementing the Ruthenian Recension with good pastoral results; instead of being marginalized, such priests and parishes should be encouraged to become liturgical centers where "the future can be seen".

Fourth, it is up to the hierarchs - right now - to give the good example in pontifical services, and to use hierarchal visits to parishes as occasions to encourage improvement, not backsliding.

Please note that the documents accompanying the Ruthenian Recension require - not as an option - that the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension be used in seminaries and houses of religious formation. One wonders when the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension was last celebrated in the seminary chapel in Pittsburgh (probably before the untimely departure of Bishop Daniel).

Again, forgive me for being negative - but there is nothing negative about these suggestions.

Father Serge

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

I agree with some of what you post. We do want what we should have had 50 years ago. And there is legitimate disagreement on how to get there. But then you go off point. My suggestion of the possibility of two editions of the Presanctified Liturgy was a pastoral one, with the final edition one that is identical to the official edition (save, of course, in elegant English). The problem with the proposed revision is that it does not have as its final goal the restoration of the official 1941/1942 Liturgy. It includes bits and pieces that different people like from the long past. Also, it makes changes to the official standard and destroys the liturgical unity we have with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox). So the comparison does not hold at all.

The idea that the revised Liturgy will raise the standard in many of our parishes is a non starter. There has been no real attempt to restore the official Liturgy so there is really no reason to suppose that revising it is going to raise the standard. There is a very true axiom in life � the lower you set the bar the less likely people are to hit it.

The idea that this is a possible fist attempt to restore the full Liturgy is also a non-starter. The only way that could possibly make sense is that if we had a Liturgicon that was incomplete and if the bishops were publishing a new edition that was more complete and then in the future one that was totally complete. But, again, we already have a Liturgicon that is complete. It only needs to be republished with some minor corrections.

Jeff, if anyone has been slamming it has been you. Principled disagreement is not �slamming�. Each time you accuse someone of slamming when they really are expressing principled disagreement you do a disservice. If you see something that is uncharitable, either report it or quote it with a question. Where you seem to see slamming I see principled disagreement, which is sometimes expressed stridently on both sides.

Yes, there are assigned psalms to each day of the week. But the breaking up of the kathisma psalms for each weekday for Presanctivied is not a restoration of an official tradition.

You asked: How can one possibly restore a full kathisma of the psalter if one can't even restore it in pieces? Or can one ONLY go from a few psalms to an entire set, with no intermediate step?

Easy. You add back in all the psalms and in year 1 ask the people to pray what they did with the old book (because they have it memorized). Then in year 2 you add another psalm or two. Each year you continue to add a psalm or two until you�re taking all the prescribed psalms.

You wrote: Similarly, if a prayer is NOT in the official books, then appointing it before or after the service makes a great deal of sense.

No, it really does not make sense. Not all the editions (Orthodox and/or Catholic) of the Presanctified have the Ephraim Prayer. But all those that do have it put it in the same place. Levkulic put it where those other books placed it. What is the logic for moving it? Why put it in a place where it looks like it�s left over from the Ninth Hour?

But now we're getting even more off topic.

I do believe that all your posts in this thread (and those of several of the other posters) have been off-topic. The discussion was supposed to be about respecting what is holy. We have something that is holy � our official Ruthenian Liturgy. It is the standard by which all those customs you keep raising are to be judged. Respecting something that is holy means not adapting it according to the preferences of a few (since that is idolatry) but rather praying it and allowing it to form us. Then, someday in the future, to work with all of the Byzantine Church to listen to the Holy Spirit who will certainly guide us.

�The content and form of our worship has been established, rather, by the inherited, authoritative transmission of the worship itself. We hand it on as we have received it. We do not take it upon ourselves to give form to the worship. If we are faithful, the worship gives form to us, and the example of Uzzah instructs us on the peril of acting otherwise.�

We should not be taking it upon ourselves to alter the form of worship. We should finally receive what has been handed down to us and make it the standard in every parish.

John

John,

"In exactly what way has Orthodoxy made an idol out of form?"

I don't believe I said they had but that making form an idol is a departure from the orthodox path and anyone can do it. But a good Orthodox example is the Old Believers. They were willing to go into schism over ritual matters.

"Are you somehow suggesting that those of us who wish to follow Rome�s directives to renew and restore and keep the official standard are the equivalent of the communist infiltrators? That we follow the form but are not really believers?"

You and most of those who argue for the use of the 1964 Liturgikon in its fullness? No. But again when I see some posters complain about very minor ritual matters like the curtain and rasie it to a reason worth leaving our Church I have to wonder about them.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

The Old Ritualists "were willing to go into schism over ritual matters"? For the sake of Christ, forgive me, but that excuse for analysis is highly offensive, and not just to Old-Ritualists.

For starters, I suggest reading Paul Meyendorrf's Russia, Ritual and Refrom. And that's just for starters. Then try reading the Old-Ritualist account of what happened and why. Keep in mind that when someone wants to make changes, the burden of the argument falls on the innovator, not on the victim.

Moreover, just who went into schism? One can argue that the Old-Ritualists had no bishops for almost two centuries. But bishops who did go with them were martyred (by being burned at the stake in the case of Hieromartyr Paul), or were imprisoned for life in solitary confinement to prevent them from serving the Old-Ritualists.

Eventually, by the will of God and the heroism of Saint Ambrose of Bila Krynytsia, the Old-Ritualists were enabled to restore the three-fold hierarchy. The Russian State Church had a three-fold hierarchy all along. However, one might just have a look at the Nikonian hierarchy. How were its members elected? How often wass there a Council of the Episcopate of the Russian State Church? So just who was schismatic, and who was following the Holy Canons?

There's much more to be said - and if you read Russian, I'll gladly put you on to some important publications - but I'm sure you get my drift. It comes to a question of where one draws the line. If the hierarchy of one Metropolia chooses to impose a seriously deformed Liturgy on the clergy and the faithful, are the clergy and the faithful truly without recourse?

Father Serge

Fr. Serge,

I know the Nikonian reforms were based on bad Greek editions and the various problems with the Nikonina reform. However, in the end the Old Rite split over largely ritual disputes. Certainly the Old Riters claimed that going from two fingered to three fingered Sign of the Cross was a doctrinal matter, but that does not make it so. Certainly doctrine was not deformed among the Nikonians because of it.

I certainly admire the Old Riters for enduring through persecution, but I can not agree their seperation was the correct thing to do.

And we must also remember that not all Old Riters accepted the three-fold hierarchy and some continue to this day without a hierarchy or sacraments. In fact there is one not 25 miles south of where I live.

Fr Deacon Lance