www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Is there a "Personal Vendetta?" - I don't think so

Father Deacon Lance,

Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by the Orthodox having to be obedient to the Eastern Congregation or the Holy Father on liturgical reform? I don't follow your reasoning from Monomakh's post.

We know that two Orthodox bishops have praised the official Ruthenian editions and consider them to be their standard. Does it not make sense to follow the directives of the Liturgical Instruction to work together with the Orthodox (and other Catholic Ruthenians) to enact any change so as to preserve unity?

Yes, it has been stated that the revisions were reviewed by the Eastern Congregation. Please don't forget that any approval letter carries no authority until made public. We really have no idea what the letter says. Even if the letter approves the Revised Liturgy in its current form (which is doubtful since it appears to be dated 2001) there is absolutely no disobedience in asking both our bishops and Rome to rescind that permission and instead require our bishops to promulgate the official Ruthenian Liturgy.

John

As my book points out, when a bishop demands blind obedience to his own visible disobedience, the results are unlikely to be positive. When the bishop instead gives the good example of his own obedience and calls upon his flock to follow suit, he is likely to succeed.

The present crisis is only the latest act in a long history of attempts to resist the clear direction of the Holy See. One must ask, insistently, what the point of this resistance can possibly be.

Father Serge

I have not heard the Revisionists use the phrase "personal vendetta" but they do use the term "venomous" to describe those who support the 1941 Sluzebnik. They have to because they have no real scholarship to offer. When someone asks them a question they talk around the subject and then accuse you of not accepting their answer.

The UGCC just mandated the official liturgical books promulgated by Rome. The Revisionists think that this is a step backwards and they have missed a chance to "make progress" with the liturgy.

Father Serge thank you for your gift to our church. You have given our clergy and laity much ammunition to use in calling our bishops away from this idea of "making progress with the liturgy." We need instead to follow the Vatican's instruction to restore what is authentically ours. Maybe someday our bishop will have the courage to do what is right. Please pray for them.

I am startled to read that
Dear me - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It just so happens that the curtain is mucholder than the iconostasis - the curtain can still be found in most of the non-Byzantine Christian East, and there is abundant evidence of the curtain in the pre-Tridentine Christian West.

Fr. Serge

I suspect the Oriental Congregation, means Fr. Taft, who for some strange reason demanded p/c translations of the Liturgy. Whatever his virtues are, as with many Jesuits, obedience does not appear to be one of them. Again, I refer to what was reported in Touchstone magazine in the article East meets English in 1998.


Where is the letter from the Oriental Congregation? Will a copy be provided? And even if one is provided, can the Church really be of two minds with respect to whether the word anthropos should be left out of the Creed in the same English speaking country? Good for Romans but not for Byzantines? What catechetical explanation will be given for the difference in the translation of the Creed? What makes us different from the Romans in this respect? If the Holy See allows the mistranslation of the Creed, it's not because it hasn't spoken, but it is because some aren't willing to follow and it has not the will to enforce what it has already written on the subject.