www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Fr Tom Hopko on "pseudomorphosis"

RE: Alexandr's citation

Unfortunately, Alexandr's response does not address the dangers of quotations out of context. St. Basil commends the Western bishops for their faithfulness, and describes the troubles in the East from the then prevalent Arian heresy. It is true that I am not St. Basil, but then I'm not writing a new Anaphora. The point is that St. Basil did make liturgical changes he felt were for the welfare of his people. As for the compilation of the Liturgy, St. Basil had nothing to do with the Constantinople Liturgy, as he was Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

Father David

Forgive me Father David, but you have lost me here. In one breath, you are stating that you are not a St Basil. On that point we are agreed. Then you go on to state that "The point is that St. Basil did make liturgical changes he felt were for the welfare of his people", which is exactly what you and other revisionists are attempting to do right now with your porposed reforms. So you and others of like mind obviously feel that you have the same rights as St Basil had to make changes. Now forgive a simple man, but to me, these two positions seem diametrically opposed. An apt comparison would be for me to state:
1. I am not Marys husband.
2. Mary's husband painted Mary's kitchen white.
3. I have the same rights as Mary's husband to paint Mary's whole house purple if I want because I feel that her house needs painted.

Now please forgive my brash words, but that seems just a bit damned presumptuous, don't you think?

Revisionism is directly responsible for the Latinizations of the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Revisionism is directly responsible for the uncanonical practice of multiple litugies being performed per day.
Revisionism is directly responsible for the near total lack of Vespers, Matins and Vigil services across the Metropolia.
Revisionism is directly responsible for the TRAVESTY of precut particles.
Rome has provided you with all that is required for you to return to "that which has been handed down to you". What keeps you and those of like mind from accepting that?

As for quoting out of context, if you would like, I would be more than willing to provide you warnings from the Church Fathers and councils concerning the sanctity of Tradition. Bucket loads of them. Would you prefer English or Slavonic. I would give you Greek, but my Koine is a bit rusty after all these years. I'll tell you what. How about I just give you one to start?

Seventh Ecumenical Council, 8th Decree:

"If one violates any part of the CHURCH TRADITION, either written or unwritten, let him be ANATHEMA."

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Alexandr

My compliments to Alexandr on a point well taken.

In general, the history and tradition of the Church teach us that it is sometimes possible to add this or that to the services, but that there is absolutely no precedent for believing that it is permissible to rip out huge chunks of the Divine Liturgy while claiming that it makes no difference (if it makes no difference, why do it?).

Fr. Serge

I have had the privilege of knowing Father Thomas Hopko for almost fifty years, and I respect him highly. That does not prevent me from disagreeing with him on the issue of the diction of the Anaphora. [I also disagree with Father Taft on the same issue, but we all still appear to be on friendly speaking terms.]

Now that that's out of the way, rather than arguing over what Father Thomas did or did not say on a particular occasion, it would make far more sense to discuss the actual issue, which is the diction of the Anaphora. I've not asked Father Thomas, but I doubt that he has any special desire to be himself the subject of a lengthy debate.

Hope Saint Nicholas is good to everyone!

Father Serge

Jim wrote:
"Arguments about credentials, like arguments that ask "Whose your daddy?", are just a diversion from answering honest questions."

Jim,

I commend you for your post and for wanting answers to honest questions.

Perhaps you could take the lead in answering these honest questions that as you wrote are not being answered?


Regarding our Liturgy, do you support - fullness or brevity?

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?

Rome published and told us what to do in the 1940s yet our Metropolia has not obeyed this to this day. Do you think that sets a good example or a bad example?

Does not having Vespers at 90% of Byzantine Catholic Churches bring us closer or further back to reunion with our Orthodox brethren?

Does not having Matins at 90% of Byzantine Catholic Churches bring us closer or further back to reunion with our Orthodox brethren?

Does having Saturday evening Liturgy instead of Vespers bring us closer or further back to reunion with our Orthodox brethren?

Does having priests graduate from our Seminary in Pittsburgh without ever experiencing the liturgy that Rome told us to implement in the 1940s set a good example or a bad example.

Do you agree with Father Petras that pre-cut particles is a bad idea? Shouldn’t every church in our Metropolia discontinue it immediately if they are doing it?


Monomakh

Monomakh, I hope my answers help you understand where I am on change. Not change for change sake, but fuller worship. I am reasonably sure many posters will disagree with me, especially those who are not BCC members, but that's one of the ironic things about this website. (Also, if anyone is confused when looking at this post, the questions are from Monomakh, the answers are from me, Jim. I am still getting used to the new edition of Forum. Sorry for any confusion.)

I gather that the latest posting means that we may be "obedient" by doing what somebody pleases right now, and never mind what the legitimate authority published and promulgated several years ago.

At the risk of exaggerating, who decides how long the time period must be? After how many years does blatant disobedience morph into humble obedience without ever actually doing what one has been told to do, and told in no uncertain terms?

Happy Saint Nicholas Day

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge:

Thanks for asking the million dollar question. Beause the fact is, if the New Liturgy is promulgated, I do believe that I will be being disobedient to Rome in at least one way, by using politically correct language and I will not be faithful to true tradition by singing a Creed that doesn't square with the Creed of the Council which gave it to us. I will take no comfort in the fact that I would be being obedient to the local Ordinaries
which of course means that my wife, nine children and I will be looking for a different Eastern Catholic Church, so as not be disobedient.

While I am begining to understand that issues are broader than the p/c mistranslation, that issue shows very clearly that in the name of obedience, one cannot demand obedience when there is no obedience to Rome because this is not simply a matter of discipline (especially see section B below:

Vatican 2002, "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal"

III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed... the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text "For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

The bigger question is why the Oriental Congregation apparently approved these changes.

PS - Since Rome is now demanding the correct translation of multis (many not all) in the consecration for the Novus Ordo one would think that they will not allow "men" to be left out of the Creed (as the American Roman Bishops have approved). If then Rome does not allow this change for the Romans, we will look awfully funny when we omit the term "men".

Dear brother in Christ, Monomakh,

I apologize; when I saw your original questions (to Wondering, I think it was) on obedience, I took them to be rhetorical. Since you seem to want SOMEONE to answer them, I'll do what I can.

Fullness, to be sure. I do understand that much of Orthodoxy as well as Eastern Rite Catholicism has "accepted abbreviations". Furthermore, even in early times, "As services became longer, an attempt for more brevity was made by having the celebrant pray some of his prayers silently while the deacon was still still repeating with the people the ekteniasoriginally intended as introductions to these same prayers." (Father Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. p. 364)

But to the extent possible, I have always preferred (and requested) fullness when preparing or arranging for services.

Well, I can't answer for the bishops; in fact, in another thread, I believe we were instructed by a moderator here not to guess at the bishops' reasons for particular actions. Also, its not clear to me what the actual jurisdiction of the Oriental Congregation is; I don't know whether the Greek Catholics in the US were among those who asked Rome to decide various vexed liturgical questions, why the bishops delayed in promulgating the books from Rome, why the Oriental Congregation was corresponding years later as to how they might be promulgated, or why the Ukrainian synod is even now getting around to instructing priests to explain the issues to the laity. It certainly looks like the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic bishops were not doing what Rome WISHED; in other contexts, this might be judged praiseworthy here. For myself, I think the bishops OUGHT to have promulgated the Roman books many years ago, I wish that they had, and I pray that they will.

Obedience (in all things but sin) to one's superiors is virtuous; we may be obligated to obey even when obedience is distasteful or difficult. How many of the desert fathers gave us this example? Your question SEEMS to imply that some expect layfolk to obey orders for liturgical change, but do not expect the same of bishops. Yet not long ago it was the other way around, and vostochniki wanted bishops to DISobey orders from Rome, at least in the matter of the ordination of married men, and took this as a measure of how "Eastern" a bishop was.

Saint Ignatius of Ignatius tells us to submit to the bishop and respect him "as a type of the Father", and that this will prove we are living "in the manner of Jesus Christ." I would expect, hope and pray that bishops obey all orders from those in authority, and further that they attempt to accept even these directives which are not expressed as orders. And I would expect, hope and pray that priests, deacons and layfolk do the same. But no one is "let off" obedience simply because he would prefer different orders. If our bishops are to be types of the Father, our obedience should be as types of Christ.

That having been said, there is PLENTY we can do to restore a fuller liturgical cycle without disobeying our bishops. But it would certainly be easier if bishops directed this restoration, and priests followed suit with their support! On some issues the bishops HAVE so directed (communion of infants, restoration of the third antiphon and some litanies, suppression of daily Divine Liturgies during the Great Fast, construction of iconostases), but they could definitely do more.

As to the details, see the next points.

This certainly feels to me like disobedience on the part of the bishops (though as I mentioned, we were also directed that we must not have married priests, and disobedience on THAT front would likely not be censured on this forum). There is also a question of obedience "to the tradition", which I find a stronger argument but a more diffuse kind of obedience.

Vespers has been missing in our churches since the switch to English, and in some cases before. Vespers OUGHT to be celebrated in our churches, whether it brings us closer to reunion or not, but it would likely help that as well.

Again, we OUGHT to be celebrating Matins. More parishes are celebrating Matins and Vespers than did ten years ago when the Liturgical Instruction came out, and we are seeing a much fuller cycle of liturgical observances at the Uniontown Pilgrimage, for example. But there is still a long way to go.

The metropolitan's Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh has certainly been teaching the celebration of Vespers and Matins, according to the 1944 Ordo; the importance of these services and their place in the liturgical cycle has been emphasized. But I am not sure of the connection (if any) of this issue to obedience; has any bishop ordered us NOT to celebrate these services?

I think your question is on firmer ground here. Saturday evening Divine Liturgies (other than those ordered by the Typikon) are a BAD thing, and distort the liturgical cycle rather than simply omitting parts of it. I would go further than say that I would prefer that only one Divine Liturgy be celebrated in each church on Sundays and feast days. (I honestly can't say, though, what ought to be done in situations where a priest serves widely separated churches.(

I have heard the "Vigil Divine Liturgy" (Vespers + Divine Liturgy on non-traditional days) explained as a way to move FROM evening Divine Liturgies TOWARD the desired goal of evening Vespers. I think that without stronger direction from our bishops, this would be a very hit-and-miss method, highly dependent on whether priests actually shared the goal of implementing real Vespers in place of evening Divine Liturgies. (On the other hand, I saw Antiochean parishes serving such Vigil Divine Liturgies before they were ever in use in our parishes; not everything we take from Orthodoxy is automatically good.)

If this is the case, it is certainly a bad example.

Absolutely. Though I think as a prudential matter, the distribution of antidoron should be implemented at the same time or even first (and moving from antidoron with "pre-cut particles" to real bread may make the case even clearer!) Also, a decision would need to be made whether to distribute the Antidoron before or after the dismissal, and whether Psalm 33 would be chanted. While I would rather see it distributed where the liturgical books have customarily had it, accompanied by the chanting of Psalm 33, I do understand that the distribution of antidoron AFTER the liturgy seems much more common in Orthodoxy, at least in the churches in my area.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

I had a few spare moments this morning and read your post, and felt compelled to respond.

In the past, you and I have often had (what I would call) "principled disagreements" on some of the discussion topics on this Forum related to Liturgy & Music.

I wanted to drop you a note to say that I just read your latest post, that I agree with the ideas you've shared, and I commend you for taking the time to share them.

A wise person once told me that "Liturgy is something living that is handed on, and not something dead which is passed down," and I believe those words have relevance to all of these discussions.

This is purely my speculation, but I do not believe that the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission, the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission, or the Council of Hierarchs intend that the development of our Liturgy and Liturgical Music will stop with the promulgation of these books. We can pray that it is intended to be the first step in a long overdue process to give more attention to these important areas of our Faith and bring us closer to the "ideal" you discuss below.

The time is appropriate for everyone to focus on those things which CAN and/or DO UNITE us, and come together to support them (and each other) -- would you agree?

My best wishes for a spiritually fulfilling Winter Pascha!

~ Cantor JKF

Right. The Liturgy is "that which is handed on." "The Tradition is not simply what we remember our grandparents doing, it is Christ's message of salvation that is necessary for life. Each generation must discover it anew." Our Church is only at the beginning of discovering Christ's message of salvation given in the Liturgy. And yet some would (well meaning but unknowingly) rewrite that message before our Church discovers it. They are the ones guilty of "traditionalism" - they pick and choose rubrics from past history and invent new ones according to modern taste. Instead they should be true traditionalists and respect that we are the inheritors and guardians of something that is alive. The Liturgy is something that changes by itself over generations. You don't recast it with mandates.

This is the first step at more Latinizations. We are imitating the Roman Catholics all over again.

What unites us to other Greek Catholics and all the Orthodox is the Liturgy. This will not be true once the Revised Divine Liturgy is mandated. Unity will be more difficult than ever.

John Damascene wrote:

"This is the first step at more Latinizations. We are imitating the Roman Catholics all over again."

Do you mean by issuing a revised liturgy we are imitating the Roman Catholics? Do you mean this by the fact that the revision is not done by consensus of the faithful? Within the Orthodox churches it would probably take an ecumenical council to make a revision acceptable to all jurisdictions, and even then the laity might object. It's been well over a thousand years since the 7th Council. The Eastern Catholic churches may share a liturgy with the Orthodox, but they haven't operated by the same ground rules for centuries. Consensus of the faithful is not required for our hierarchy to decide to revise the liturgy, but if most people reject it, it would be a wasted effort. What we are likely to have, however, is agreement of all of the BCC bishops, which is not unlike having synodal approval, as long as Rome agrees. And I am led to believe Rome already has agreed (see the many earlier posts). How the laity will react is up for grabs. Changing jurisdictions over this issue would be extraordinarily difficult. There is much more that goes into that than rejecting the revised liturgy.

A parish might not get around to implementing the change. Not sure how that would work in the long run. Any takers?

John D also said:

"What unites us to other Greek Catholics and all the Orthodox is the Liturgy. This will not be true once the Revised Divine Liturgy is mandated. Unity will be more difficult than ever."

The Liturgy does create some semblance of unity with the Orthodox and others, but it doesn't bring full union with them. Many Orthodox still want all eastern Catholic churches to disband and become Orthodox instead. Not likely to happen.

There is no genuine consensus among the Orthodox on our status. It would have to come from the ground up, the way many would like to see liturgical revisions come on the Forum. That's not likely to happen, either.

John D said that it is the liturgy that unites the various Greek Catholics, actually it is the Eucharist that unites the different rites of the Roman Catholic Church. While there are different communities within the Roman Catholic communion that practice different liturgies, ie, Maronites, the various churches that use the Byzantine Rite... the liturgies are all different. The one thing that unites them all together is the Eucharist.

Development in this case could be a frightening thing. According to Cardinal Newman, in his famous work "The Development of Christian Doctrine" development is generally toward a fuller explanation of what was previously implicit in the texts. I think the issue which has been discussed throughout this thread is this, "Is this real development or radical change." For example, can we expect more inclusive langauge in the future? Say in the translations of the Epistles.

My problem is that I don't see the inclusive language (in the Creed, Great Doxology and Liturgy) as organic development. In fact, I see it cutting us off from our roots:



In my opinion, if they are willing to change the Creed so as not to give offense to those who will insist on being offended, what's next in the development?

Jim,

All the questions you have asked have already been answered. Some of them have been answered at least a dozen times.

But here goes. Maybe this time you will actually read the answers before you change the subject with another round of questions?

Jim wrote: Do you mean by issuing a revised liturgy we are imitating the Roman Catholics?

Yes. The revisions imitate the Roman reforms of the 1960s and 1970s. They are the product of a Latin mindset. The only way to become Eastern is to pray what the Orthodox pray the way the Orthodox pray it.

Jim wrote: Do you mean this by the fact that the revision is not done by consensus of the faithful?

Not "consensus." Sensus Fidelium. The two are very different. Read what has already been posted if you still don't understand the difference.

Jim wrote: Within the Orthodox churches it would probably take an ecumenical council to make a revision acceptable to all jurisdictions, and even then the laity might object.

More evidence that the Liturgy is not broken.

Jim wrote: It's been well over a thousand years since the 7th Council. The Eastern Catholic churches may share a liturgy with the Orthodox, but they haven't operated by the same ground rules for centuries.

Should not be restoring Orthodox "ground rules" be the first thing our Church must do?

How does destroying the remaining liturgical unity contribute to future unity?

Jim wrote: Consensus of the faithful is not required for our hierarchy to decide to revise the liturgy, but if most people reject it, it would be a wasted effort.

Not "consensus." Sensus Fidelium. The two are very different. Yes. It has all been a wasted effort. Almost all the clergy and people are against these revisions.

Jim wrote: And I am led to believe Rome already has agreed (see the many earlier posts).

There is no public evidence to support this claim. If Rome had agreed with the revisions the documentation would have been the centerpiece of their propaganda. Instead it is kept secret.

Jim wrote: How the laity will react is up for grabs.

No. It is not up for grabs. No one - neither clergy nor laity - is asking for or supporting these changes. Just look at the number of complaints from the trial run with the Annunciation / Good Friday books back in 2005. It was an utter disaster.

Jim wrote: Changing jurisdictions over this issue would be extraordinarily difficult. There is much more that goes into that than rejecting the revised liturgy.

Registering at a new parish is not difficult at all.

Jim said: The Liturgy does create some semblance of unity with the Orthodox and others, but it doesn't bring full union with them. Many Orthodox still want all eastern Catholic churches to disband and become Orthodox instead. Not likely to happen.

Some sense of unity? You sound more like an Episcopalian than a Byzantine Catholic.

Jim said: There is no genuine consensus among the Orthodox on our status. It would have to come from the ground up, the way many would like to see liturgical revisions come on the Forum. That's not likely to happen, either.

There is consensus among the Orthodox. They all laugh at what we have done and are doing with the Liturgy. The way to change their opinion is to restore, restore, restore.

JD

PS: Can one of our more active posters summarize the dozens of questions that you have asked Jim? He seems to have missed all of them. Or maybe he knows that they cannot be answered from good scholarship. Whoever is feeding him questions to ask should also feed him answers.