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

Lots of discussions here and there is a danger of falling into the same academic dillema that caused the "Old Believers" in Russia to be fixed only on resisting reforms, and in our times the ROCOR and "old Calendarists" Greeks. As an Orthodox I would hate to see your people being pushed into corners on such an issue like the uses and variations of languages. At least for example the German language has international commissions that decide on what is the common language to be taught. The problem here is the confusion of American English and how its spoken and understood.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear CantorJKF,

I most certainly disagree. There exists a large, powerful, group of "Men," that do have a personal vendetta.

Anyone that would decrease, eliminate, suppress, or contaminate Prayer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, most certainly does have a Personal Vendetta against the Undivided Trinity.

God created MANKIND in his image. Every Man, Woman, and Child is called to have a personal relationship with God. We are called to be living Icons of Jesus Christ. Anyone that attempts to interfer with this relationship be it by eliminating Litanies, forcing the use of exclusive-inclusive language, etc. is interfering with the personal relationship that we Must have with the Incarnate God.

This Vendetta is also a Vendetta against each and every member, past member, and potential member of the Faithful. Chopped up, contaminated Liturgy damages the Faithful and Angers the Lord.

Yes, This is Personal.

I am a casual observer. I can say from my own vantage point (one who is forming an opinion based on these threads, and one who does not have an affinity for either side's "men") that the side which is against the revisions has done more harm than good in trying to convince me of the correctness of their position with many of their posts. I am not willing to point out certain posts or posters, but am only giving a casual observer's general observation. I am not willing to argue or engage on this point as the point is my subjective feeling. I readily admit that and offer it for whatever growth might occur in any who feel it speaks to them.

A more charitable conversation about the facts instead of the men and their motivations would go a long way in promoting both sides.

My humble mite,
Wondering

I would suggest a more detailed reading of the Old Ritualist history; it was far more than an empirical resistance of reforms and extended into cultural identity as well. It was far, far more than just a stubborn resistance to a few liturgical changes, and was accompanied by physical force and executions against those who maintained the Old Rite.

The Latin church learned historical lessons in two large ways. The first lesson was the forced implementation of the Pauline Mass (which most refer to as the Novus Ordo). This has only recently begun to be healed with the subsequent partial reconciliation by Pope John Paul II through the creation of several Latin Mass fraternities and communities, and the recent actions of Pope Benedict to take this reconciliation to the next step through even wider allowance of the 1962 Missal. The second lesson is in the English translation of the Pauline Mass itself - a restoration back from more inclusive language. Let us use history for its educational value, and not replay it.

I began reading the posts at the beginning and even posted my opinions once or twice myself. But then I quit reading because I think things got out of hand with certain posters seeming to endorse rebellion within the ranks of the faithful. At least that is how I read it.

I don't know about vendetta, but each opponent of the changes certainly fed the other opponents, and like a monster the thread grew and took on a life of its own.

From my readings in the Liturgical Theology course I'm currently taking, I know that the Liturgy has changed many, many times over the past 2,000 years. Litanies were NOT a part of the original Liturgy, which apparently was a simple meal with a short anamnesis and some psalms. Certainly, the elimination of the Litany of the Catechumens makes sense if there are no catechumens attending Liturgy. I work part-time for a RC parish and it currently has 14 catechumens, all of whom attend the same Mass on Sunday. They are dismissed at a certain point and then attend catechesis. There the litany of the catechumens would be appropriate.

One of the reasons the Eastern Church in Europe survived the years of oppression was that each church had its own national culture. The vast majority of our members here in the U.S. were born here in the U.S. They are part of an American culture and the Liturgy is changing, in part, to accommodate that culture. The Byzantine Liturgy that came to Eastern Europe with Cyril & Methodius did not remain static. It gradually changed, sometimes for all the various Churches, and even more often for the local churches. The new Liturgy that will be promulgated by the Bishops will change over time, too. I would suggest that posters who haven't read Beyond East and West by Father Robert J. Taft, do so. He provides a good explanation of what was added and what dropped away, and why.

I believe that it's up to the Bishops to decide what is best for the Metropolia. We, the people, both clergy and laity, should follow their instructions. Change is part of life, and sometimes it's painful. But what "doesn't kill us makes us stronger," and I very much doubt that changing the Liturgy will kill our Church.

One of the good things that can come out of this change is the catechesis of the laity in what Liturgy is all about. We're already seeing that in my parish, which just finished a series of classes based on Father Petras's book.

The worst thing that could happen is to have the clergy refuse to follow their Bishops in integrating the new Liturgy into their parishes. Such a lack of humility on their part would be a scandal to the laity and lead to further schism within the Church. As one poster on another thread stated, the divisions within the Church are a product of sin. We are, and have for centuries been, a hierarchical church. The Bishops are the Shepherds of the Church and the sheep, in humility, should follow.

Sophia Wannabe,

You speak so adamantly in favor of being obedient and humble and imply we should all do that in regards to authority.


Perhaps you could answer this for everyone:

How are we currently being humble and obedient to Rome?

Myabe you can explain or find out in the class you are taking how we are being obedient to the dictates of Ordo Celebrationis? You should know as well as I do that this has never been rescinded and yet our Eparchies have taken it upon themselves to not obey it.

+JPII and Pope Benedict have said time after time after time to return to our Orthodox roots. We are not doing it. Are we being obedient or disobedient?

If you choose to only answer one set of my questions, answer this:

Why is a Catholic Church in communion with Rome in direct disobedience to the Congregation of Eastern Churches? Why has the Ruthenian Church decided all on its own to be flippant with the traditions that they vowed to uphold and preserve in the sacred Liturgy. Why is it that the bishops have taken it upon themselves to revise the Divine Liturgy contrary to the CCEO?


Do you only want obedience to take place the day the new liturgy is official? But not today, tomorrow, yesterday, or next week under the current conditions?

Monomakh

Sophia:

I would suggest that you read the book by Fr. Serge on the revisionist liturgy, it outlines the deficiencies and defects well enough that they don�t need to be gone over again. That should also be a topic of study in your parish. It is always best to get a balanced view of what is going on, don�t you think?

In regards to a vendetta, I don�t think there is one, but there are strong opinions on both sides. Remember, the revisionist liturgy went from being an academic pursuit to a political agenda the minute the pen was put to the paper. Those who would like to stop it know only too well, that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very hard to get the cap back on. Look at the turmoil our RC brethren are in at the moment over an event that took place 40 years ago.

I do agree with you on the fact that it is the bishops who need to decide what is best for the metropolia, but looking at their collective work, it appears they have no plan or agenda for the future of our church. It is evident everywhere you look, and even if it looks like they do, scratch a little below the surface, and there is no substance. We as a church suffer from a profound lack of leadership; this liturgy is just another example.

Here is an example of the leadership we have, and I won�t identify the bishop by name in the following quote. When asked if he was going to approve the new liturgy, the bishop responded: �The liturgical commission has done a lot of hard work, I have to approve it just because of that�. What type of leadership is that?

Would I agree with clergy and the faithful not obeying their bishops over this matter? Yes. Our bishops have ignored directives and guidance from Rome repeatedly. I�ve asked that question before as to what our obligation is in this matter, and no one will touch it.

Sine Nomine

Monomakh and Sine Nomine:

Our responsibility is to obey our bishops. It is the bishops' responsibility to obey their superiors. If they lead us astray, the sin will be upon their heads, not ours.

As to returning to our Orthodox roots, to which century are we to return? Posters on this forum have been aghast that some churches don't have a floor to ceiling iconostasis, much less a curtain. Yet those were very late liturgical developments. The iconostasis began as a 3 or 4-foot wall over which all but the shortest could see everything the priest did. And all his prayers were audible.

Others have come unraveled at the shortening of the antiphons. And yet, historically, the liturgy began with "Holy God, Holy and Mighty," sung as the bishop entered the church.

Should we go back to the ancient practice of a homily (maybe an hour or more) after EVERY reading?

Would people be happy if communion were distributed not by the priest but by the deacons? Should the deacons once again perform the proskomide rites? Should they be the sole deliverers of communion to the sick?

Should we forget Divine Liturgy on weekdays, but take home the sacrament for consumption during the week? Would that make people more amenable to coming to church for Matins and Vespers?

Hey, and what about returning to our roots by bringing back deaconesses to minister to the women and children of our parishes? If we hadn't banished them, the Church probably wouldn't have endured all the scandal of the past few years.

Dear Sophia:

Our responsibility is not to obey our bishops without question, after all, to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, "When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4. We have no obligation to follow, or support, our bishops down the road to ruin. Let's get this on the table once and for all. The people in the pews, especially the younger ones, are better educated and well heeled than previous generations who occupied the pews before us. Unlike those before us, we're not going to be herded like sheep, or turn a blind eye to abuse of authority. The situation on authority you just pointed out could be used as a definition for the term "double standard".

Monomakh and I made a number of points, none of which were adequately addressed.

Please don't muddy the waters, as so many others have done, concerning our Orthodox roots and where we should return to. I believe that the consensus would be to use what Rome published and told us to implement in the 1940s. Additionally, many priests and deacons who are present in this forum, either by posting or lurking, would probably agree that the rubrics from the Red Liturgicon are perfect as-is. That would be a good beginning, too.

As to your point that deaconesses would have saved the church from scandal, that is unfounded speculation.


Sine Nomine

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts." - [b][/b]St. John Chrysostom

Sophia,

Did you not see the questions that I wrote in my post or are you purposely avoiding them?

Why is a Catholic Church in communion with Rome in direct disobedience to the Congregation of Eastern Churches? Why has the Ruthenian Church decided all on its own to be flippant with the traditions that they vowed to uphold and preserve in the sacred Liturgy. Why is it that the bishops have taken it upon themselves to revise the Divine Liturgy contrary to the CCEO?


Do you only want obedience to take place the day the new liturgy is official? But not today, tomorrow, yesterday, or next week under the current conditions?

ps - Don't fret too much about how far 'back' us Traditionalists want to go. As Sine Nomine wrote, Rome published and told us what to do in the 1940s yet our church has not obeyed this to this day. Do you think that sets a good example or a bad example?


Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

To answer your questions: we owe obedience to our bishops in all things that are not sinful on our part. Is it sinful to sing one antiphon verse, or to hear the Anaphora taken aloud? I see many here complaining; how many of them asked their bishops anytime between 1950 and 2000, in a non-argumentative, humble way, that the bishop simply promulgate the Ordo and order its observance? How many WORKED to convince their parish priests and fellow parishioners that this would be acceptable and desirable?

When our bishops directed that weekday Liturgies were not to be celebrated during the Great Feast, they took a lot of flak from long-time church members. Now they take flak for preparing a service book that requires more litanies and antiphons to be said (people complain about the longer service) and for not including all three antiphon verses (people complain about the shorter service). The present attitude (accusing them of being "flippant", etc.) does not provide them much support in a very difficult undertaking: changing parish practice in MANY places. For example, the proposed book indicates that the faithful should stand at various points rather than kneel. This will be quite controversial in many places (though it shouldn't be). By contributing to a culture of defiance of bishops whenever we disagree with them, you are NOT helping to restore the traditions we ought to have.

A priest has a different responsibility - since he is responsible for the liturgy in his own temple, he must both obey the bishop and follow the tradition. He would be obligated, for example, to ask the bishop whether he may celebrate in a more complete way. The priest may sin by disobeying the bishop without a grave cause; the bishop may sin, on the other hand, by squelching liturgical restoration, or by failing to order it when he might. These are different one from another, AND from the issue of what obedience the faithful ought to render to their shepherds in Christ.

But since many of the issues here involve abbreviations of a century or more standing, its hard to justify the attitude that such abbreviations are SO sinful that a bishop may never order some of them for consistency across the church. I may not like them, but I can't justify disobedience on MY part; instead, we should pray (as the original poster suggested), work to educate our brethren, ASK the bishops for complete, correct liturgical pratice, and SUPPORT them in ALL things they do toward that end (such as restoring infant communion, proper Lenten services, Vespers and Matins, etc.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Monomakh,

The Orthodox would object to having to be obedient to the Eastern Congregation or the Pope of Rome on any matter but most especially where it concerns liturgical reform.

But to state again for what seems the umpteenth time the revisions were reviewed by the Eastern Congregation. The CCEO leaves liturgical matters to the Pope or Synod or Council as dictated by the status of the Church. You claim the bishops have been disobedient and yet Rome has only ever removed one and it was not directly for his liturgical preferences which were very latinized.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This a repeat warning that was placed on another thread in this section, but bears repeating. As the moderator to this section I am going to make a point on this section as an outsider. There are questions being posed, and yet not being answered but instead rounded or redirected. I am going to refuse to let this thread and the other threads progress unless the supporting documentation asked is supplied or the questions asked replied to in a knowledgeable way. These questions have been asked over and over and have been redirected or deflected to the shame of those doing it.

If these questions can not be answered by the support of documentation, then do not post a reply. I and many others that have been monitoring this section are tired of seeing these questions posed, only to be ignored. As the moderator to this section I am going to be taking a different tactic in order for this matter to progress forward. If the answers can not be properly answered, any reply posts will be simply deleted until the answers are forthcoming. This is my right as a moderator, and I am invoking it. Because I am disabled at the moment and at home working I can more closely monitor these discussions and will be tightly monitoring the discussions.

I know that this will not please many on either side, but I believe this is necessary for any of these discussions to progress. If this means that posters will know have to start doing their homework before posting, fine so be it! The emotional bantering and avoidance of the questions presented will stop in this section.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Jeff,

Do not the bishops owe the same obedience to the official Vatican directives that they ask their priests give to them?

But you seem to putting the cart before the horse. We are discussing a liturgical reform that is still in the proposal stage. There is absolutely no disobedience in advocating that our Church finally promulgate the official Ruthenian Liturgy. Even should this Revision someday be promulgated an individual priest must follow it but still has every right under canon law to petition Rome for permission to follow the official Liturgy. The idea that those who oppose the Revised Liturgy are somehow disobedient merely because they advocate faithfulness to our official Liturgy is ludicrous.

I certainly have. Over the past 20 or so years I have encouraged all of our bishops and priests to embrace the fullness of our official Liturgy. I know many more of our faithful (lay and clergy) who have done the same.

This is a misleading statement.

The service book that is being proposed based upon the proposed Revised Liturgy has FEWER litanies and antiphons than either the Levkulic Pew Book or the "Little Green" liturgy book (with the Levkulic Pew Book being the book found in the pews of the vast majority of our parishes - it even indicated options for the litanies it did not include).

I agree that the Liturgy as celebrated in many places is a severe abbreviation. I submit that it not necessary to revise the Liturgy in order to raise the "as celebrated" in many parishes. We have seen parishes move from a much abbreviated Liturgy to one that is very exacting to the official Liturgy (and grow because of it). Nothing in what you are arguing supports the Revision. Some of those who support the Revision of the Liturgy claim that the Revised Liturgy will raise the standard in our parishes. So what? One can easily come up with any number of revisions to the Liturgy that will raise the standard in some parishes. That simply doesn't speak to justifying the changing of the standard. We know that the official standard works. All we need to do is follow it.

The Revised Liturgy does not in any way contribute to the restoration of the tradition we ought to have that restoring the official Ruthenian Liturgy does not. If anyone claims that it does he is mistaken.

John