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

Dear Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your response. I still sense an unwillingness on your part to see the two foci as overlapping and/or complementary. I hope to respond to it at greater length, but do not have the chance to do so at the moment.


I will only ask one question: if the Liturgy is not, at least in part, about instructing man, why do we sing the troparia and kontakia as part of the DL? Are these hymns not meant to instruct?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Elijahmaria:

If you consider Basil, Maximos, Symeon, Schmemann, and Meyendorff to be "new catechists" (whatever that means), then I am guilty as charged.

Perhaps you should read Maximos' Ambigua before responding. I'll take the time to answer the main question you posed, though I do think Fr. David should be the one to answer it.

In Christ,
Theophilos

It might surprise you to no end to know that I am actually familiar with each one of these men.

Rather than hand waving and name dropping, would you mind offering text that mirror this remarkable assertion that humankind has been charged with the unique task of reforming and restoring the entire creation to God!! I am presuming that you mean that this is a divine mandate, but one can never be too sure:

This transformation, in turn, allows us to accomplish the unique task we as human creatures possess: to reform and restore the entire creation to God.

Mary

Let�s look the Troparion of the Cross:

O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance! Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries, and by virtue of thy Cross, preserve thy habitation.

Is this troparion primarily a prayer or primarily an instructive element?

Certainly there is an instructive element in all the texts of the Divine Liturgy (no one has said there is not). The point is that the Divine Liturgy is about worship. Even the troparia are really prayers. Liturgy is arranged by the Spirit for the higher level of catechesis (participation in the Divine Light) and not for the lower form of catechesis (the instructive value of the text).

Let�s look at today�s troparion for the Apostle Jude:

O Holy Apostle Jude, intercede with the all-merciful God, that He may grant us the forgiveness of our sins.

This troparion�s main focus is not about instructing man, even though in all troparia there is much to learn from. The focus of this troparion is for the gathered Church to ask the Apostle Jude to pray for us. The instructive element is a product of the prayer, rather then the purpose of it.

The Anaphora is, of course, different the troparia. The Anaphora (to quote Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) again) �is really more than speech; it is the action in the highest sense of the word. For what happens in it is that the human action (as performed by priests in the various religions of the world) steps back and makes way for the action divina, the action of God. � The real �action� in the liturgy is the action of God himself. � God Himself acts and does what is essential.�

When we make the instructive element of the hearing of the prayers the primary criterion for the liturgical form we harm the ability of the gathered Church to participate in the action of God.

As I have stated numerous times, perhaps the custom of praying these prayers aloud may develop organically someday. That is up to the Spirit and liberty serves better then mandates. But rearranging the rubrics to serve the desire to educate man necessarily means the focus has shifted away from worshipping God. And, of course, there are those supporters of the RDL who have actually suggested that unless one hears the words of all the prayers and understands the divine action one cannot say �Amen� (which I think proves the reform is all about man and not about God).

Look at the revision another way (and with a slightly different point). The RDL removes prayers (mainly litanies, in which the priest, deacon and people each have a part). It removes these prayers to allow for certain priestly prayers to be prayed aloud because it considers the instructive value of hearing those particular priestly prayers a higher form of catechesis than is the praying of the prayers which have been removed. Instruction that might come from hearing is now considered a higher form of catechesis than is prayer and participation in the divine action.

Actually, John, the public addresses I have heard have emphasized not the educational aspect of the anaphora taken aloud, but the dialogic aspect - that as Saint Paul remarked, how can those who sit in the seat of the unlearned offer their Amen if they do not understand (or in this case, hear) what was said?

And let's face it, if even half our parishes had been taking three antipon verses and the litanies that were omitted in Msgr Lekvulic's book, they would likely never have been omitted in the new books.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I am thinking RDL now stands for "Reduced Divine Liturgy". In a former parish after spending several years to restore (yes, restore) the full 1965 Liturgikon from that atrocious 1980s precursor to the RDL, I saw in a couple of weeks time the Liturgy reduced by forced elimination of antiphon verses, litanies, and the institution of inclusive language and new music. We were told no hymns or anything could be taken outside of the new books. In no way could that be considered a restoration, but only a reduction.

When Rome and our sainted bishops of blessed memory exhorted us to "restoration", I think they meant "restoration", and not "reduction".

EM:

Nothing you say at this point surprises me. What would surprise me is if you actually admitted that you are not omniscient and infallible. But that is quite beside the point... and probably uncharitable on my part.

Also, lest you bring me up on charges of heresy, let me restate my proposition more precisely: it is man's unique task, by virtue of his created nature, Christ's assumption and restoration of that nature, and our freely-willed participation in His Risen Body, to work with God toward the reformation and restoration of the entire created order.

As for some of the texts upon which I base this proposition (I can produce more, if you'd like):

Maximos, Ambigua 41 (PG 91: 1305-1308) Maximos here notes the "polarities" that man, as microcosm and mediator, is meant to overcome: God and creation, spiritual and material, paradise and world, man and woman. Maximos goes on to say that man is a "workshop" or a "laboratory" (ergast�rion) and that it "is the appointed task of each one of us to make manifest in ourselves the great mystery of the divine intention: to show how the divided extremes in created things may be reconciled in harmony, the near with the far, the lower with the higher, so that through gradual ascent all are eventually brought into union with God."

Basil, The Morals. Basil refers to man in this work as God's "co-worker" in carrying out His will (R80, cap.18). He also notes that Christians are asked to serve �as a model or rule of piety unto the perfecting of all righteousness in the followers of the Lord and unto proof of iniquity in those who are guilty of the slightest disobedience� (R80, cap.13), to execute �the commands of God... in such a way as to give glory to God and to enlighten all men� (R18, cap.5). They ought to be �[a]s salt in the earth, so that they may renew in spirit unto incorruption those who associate with them" (R80, cap.9).

In his "Ecclesiological Notes" (SVTQ, 1967), Schmemann says the following: "...in Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, the new Adam, creation finds not only redemption and reconciliation with God, but also its fulfillment. Christ is the Logos, the Life of all life, and this life, which was lost because of sin, is restored and communicated in Christ, in His incarnation, death, resurrection, and glorification, to man and through him [i.e., man] to the whole creation."

These will have to suffice for now. And, yes, this task is a divine mandate in the sense that it is a responsibility we possess by virtue of the unique gifts we have been given as human beings. Man is the "king" of creation, as the Nyssan says in On the Making of Man, and this entails that he is expected to work not only toward his own deification but the deification of his fellow man and the sanctification of the temporal world. Man is responsible, with God, for realizing the gradual destruction of evil and the supernatural participation of all men and all things in God, their original source and principle (1 Cor. 15.28).

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Administrator:

But consider the full Kontakion for the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Six Councils:

The Apostles� preaching and the Fathers� teaching have established a single faith in the Church. Since this Church is now robed with the mantle of truth woven by inspired theology, it properly explains and glorifies the great mystery of the faith.

O Word of God and Lover of Mankind, Infinite and beyond description in your becoming Man for our sake: the noble assembly of Fathers proclaimed that You are both perfect Man and perfect God, one Person in two perfect natures, with two perfect wills. Wherefore we profess that You are one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and singing a hymn of praise to the Fathers, we adore You!

O glorious Fathers of the Councils, you demonstrated that Pyrrhus, Sergius, Onuphrius and Dioscorus were in error as well as Nestorius concerning their doctrines on Christ. You save the flock by teaching the true principle that Christ is one divine Person in two natures. This Christ we adore as perfect Man and perfect God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. O holy Fathers, we honor you and sing to you a hymn of praise!

The Fathers of the Councils, inspired by God, declare and explain that in Christ there is a divine Act and a divine Will, uncreated and infinite : the Act and Will of the Son of God; and a human Act and human Will: those of the Son of Man. Thus did they proclaim that Christ is one divine Person having two natures, those of God and of Man. Wherefore we the faithful honor these Fathers every year, and glorify Christ who glorified them.

The Fathers of the Council proclaim to us today that the eternal Trinity is one God and one Lord, explaining to us that it is of one nature, consubstantial, of one will and one act, not divided nor shared but existing in the simplicity of God�s being; and defining that this will and act of God have no beginning and will never have an end. �Wherefore we the faithful glorify these Fathers as the Equals of the Apostles, for they taught all mankind the true doctrine of God.

O Holy Fathers of the Councils, you are the faithful keepers of the Apostles� tradition. By proclaiming that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are one and consubstantial, you refuted the blasphemy of Arius; by teaching that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person, one with the Father and the Son, you put Macedonius, Severus and other heretics to shame. Wherefore we beseech you to intercede for us, preserving us from heresy and error and keeping our lives blameless in God�s sight.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I am not sure why you think a comment like this is your right, or even of benefit to your cause?

It certainly drains the power from the rest of your commentary.



Mr. Theophilos's unrevised assertion:

This transformation, in turn, allows us to accomplish the unique task we as human creatures possess: to reform and restore the entire creation to God.


I should have known that I needed to stipulate:

DO NOT RE-WRITE YOUR INITIAL ASSERTION ONCE YOU REALIZE HOW BADLY IT IS FLAWED.

Your second try is still flawed but since it is of such little consequence in this thread I will leave it alone, accept to say that God works through us, more accurately, than 'we work with God' and it is a privilege and grace that we are given, and not a "task" or mandate.

You might remember the Apostle Paul.

And a final word from Pope Benedict's 2006 Easter Vigil Homily:

How can we understand this? I think that what happens in Baptism can be more easily explained for us if we consider the final part of the short spiritual autobiography that Saint Paul gave us in his Letter to the Galatians. Its concluding words contain the heart of this biography: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). I live, but I am no longer I. The "I", the essential identity of man - of this man, Paul - has been changed. He still exists, and he no longer exists. He has passed through a "not" and he now finds himself continually in this "not": I, but no longer I.

With these words, Paul is not describing some mystical experience which could perhaps have been granted him, and could be of interest to us from a historical point of view, if at all. No, this phrase is an expression of what happened at Baptism. My "I" is taken away from me and is incorporated into a new and greater subject. This means that my "I" is back again, but now transformed, broken up, opened through incorporation into the other, in whom it acquires its new breadth of existence. Paul explains the same thing to us once again from another angle when, in Chapter Three of the Letter to the Galatians, he speaks of the "promise", saying that it was given to an individual - to one person: to Christ. He alone carries within himself the whole "promise". But what then happens with us? Paul answers: You have become one in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Not just one thing, but one, one only, one single new subject. This liberation of our "I" from its isolation, this finding oneself in a new subject means finding oneself within the vastness of God and being drawn into a life which has now moved out of the context of "dying and becoming". The great explosion of the Resurrection has seized us in Baptism so as to draw us on. Thus we are associated with a new dimension of life into which, amid the tribulations of our day, we are already in some way introduced. To live one�s own life as a continual entry into this open space: this is the meaning of being baptized, of being Christian. This is the joy of the Easter Vigil. The Resurrection is not a thing of the past, the Resurrection has reached us and seized us. We grasp hold of it, we grasp hold of the risen Lord, and we know that he holds us firmly even when our hands grow weak. We grasp hold of his hand, and thus we also hold on to one another�s hands, and we become one single subject, not just one thing. I, but no longer I: this is the formula of Christian life rooted in Baptism, the formula of the Resurrection within time. I, but no longer I: if we live in this way, we transform the world. It is a formula contrary to all ideologies of violence, it is a programme opposed to corruption and to the desire for power and possession.

Thank you Mr. Theophilos.

M.

That's hilarious and sad, 'if half of our parishes had been taking the three antiphon verses and litanies that were omitted in Msgr Lekvulic's book, they would likely never have been omitted in the new books.'

So since the directives of Rome were purposely disobeyed it is okay to continue the incorrect practice and print that in our books. Yet if the right thing would have been done we would then continue the correct practice. Holy cow! People who weren't even born when our leaders chopped up and omitted parts of our liturgy are continuing to be wrongly deprived of these parts. Please don't tell me you are going to call that organic development?

I think that many people would start asking questions if the full liturgy and rubrics were printed in our books. Questions like, why are we skipping all this stuff? Why haven't we done this in the past? This way makes it seem like what we celebrate is everything that is supposed to be celebrated.

I love it, the one area that really was organic development was the music, and that is what was changed and is being jammed down our throats. So much for 50 years of practice in some churches. But the areas that were clearly disobeyed, that is okay to continue on incorrectly because it hard to overcome 50 years of practice. The reasoning of the revisionists doesn't even make sense.

I'm going to the garage to get the duct tape because my head might explode.


Monomakh

I am going to put up a warning now. The tone that certain posters are using in addressing each other in this thread, and also the name-calling is unacceptable. It either ceases immediately or posting privileges will be at stake. The next action will be long term suspensions. If you can not post in Christian charity, then don't post. I will not be editing any more posts in this thread regarding the above issue.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

EM:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I apologize for the opening paragraph of my previous response. It was uncalled for, and I sincerely ask for your forgiveness.

I stand by the orthodoxy of the original statement I made, in the context in which I made it. My restatement -- the orthodoxy of which is also unimpeachable -- was made necessary only because you chose to make the original the subject of further investigation. I was simply trying to render the idea as clear as possible, given its pending treatment in isolation, and restated the proposition in the spirit of Christian dialogue, in the spirit of wishing to teach and wishing to be taught.

That you chose to ignore the textual proofs you asked for is telling.

That you chose to throw Paul's name out there without pointing me in the direction of any particular epistle, chapter, or passage is also telling.

That you chose to cite Pope Benedict -- who, brilliant and good and holy though he may be, is not an Orthodox theologian -- is also telling.

(The Pope's statement is certainly not untruthful in any sense -- but I believe a truly Eastern Christian approach would more more strongly affirm that the new "I" one becomes in and through baptism is the true "I", the authentically human-divine "I" that one was always meant to become, from the beginning.)

Your entire response, in fact, is telling.

I wish you a peaceful and prayerful evening.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I understand this too as indicated by the RDL.


The English of the 1965 liturgicon* and the Russian Church Abroad translation given in the initial post have it otherwise, i.e.,having the syntax make us worthy to partake [of the mysteries]...for the remission of sins etc. I believe the Greek and Slavonic support this reading and not that of the RDL.

The question here is one of grammar not theology. That one partakes of the mysteries -- the Lord's body and blood -- "for the remission of (his-her) sins and for life everlasting," however, should not surprise anyone who receives Communion.

Dn. Anthony

* http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgikon%20E&S/Chrysostom/English/38-39e.htm

Father Petras may wish to clarify but both his posts here and what he has written in his recent book suggest that he believes strongly that hearing the words is 1) a prerequisite for participation and 2) necessary for the education of the faithful. In fact, he makes it quite clear that he believes that since the Anaphora is the prayer of the Church the people do not really participate if they don�t hear it. [As a balance to Father David you might read Father Serge Keleher�s excellent book on the RDL. On one of these threads there is a link to it.]

You summarize part of the Revision correctly. Rather than raise up the parishes that are taking an abbreviated Liturgy to something higher the RDL lowers the standard and forcibly drags down the parishes doing more.

If the bishops had promulgated the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as normative in our Church and celebrated it their cathedrals, over time the parishes would rise closer and closer to the full Liturgy.

You have been asked this question a number of times and always ignore it. What exactly does the RDL restore that was not already in the 1964 Red Book? What was so wrong with it that a concerted effort to pray it fully in our parishes could not succeed (and where a similar effort with the RDL could succeed)?

I have seen a parish grow from 30 to 140 on Sundays (while burying another 140) - just by praying Vespers, Matins and the full Liturgy. Parma made revisions in 1988 and Passaic in 1995. Where is the growth with these Revised Liturgies that equals or surpasses this? Where are the test parishes that prove the RDL works better then the Ruthenian Liturgy?

Theophilos,

You seem to have ignored most of the points I have made and instead are trying to move the topic along to something else.

The Divine Liturgy is the prayer among prayers. Among both Catholic and Orthodox it has four main marks:

1. Praise
2. Adoration
3. Petition
4. Thanksgiving

There is nothing in either classic Orthodox or classic Catholic liturgical theology about education being a main purpose of liturgical prayer. Surely there is education, but the primary and greater form of catechesis is from participation in the Divine Light and not from the instructional value of the prayers. We attend religious education (ECF, CCD, Bible Study, and etc.) to get instruction. We attend Liturgy to pray, for the purposes outlined above. When you change the liturgical form to make it educational the educational aspect overshadows all of the four main marks of liturgical worship and diminishes them.

Yes, we hear and heed God�s holy Word. We listen attentively to the preaching. We are instructed there. But, do we not also pray the readings of the Scripture? Is not God praised, adored, implored and thanked in the announcing of his Word and in the chanting of the Scripture? The whole Liturgy is oriented towards God. When you reorient it towards man, and educating him, you necessarily take away the orientation, the focus, from God.

The idea of worship as instruction is basically a Protestant approach to prayer. Go to the Methodist or Evangelical Churches and it is teaching, teaching, teaching, and more teaching. That�s way they invented pews, so people would already be sitting down when they fall asleep! Rearranging the worship so that people get more knowledge changes the whole dynamic of the Liturgy (and if we do that we will need to remove the pews and put in sleeper sofas). We are all about worship � praise � worship � adoration � worship � petition � worship � thanksgiving. The education that comes through worship is something exponentially higher than any education that comes from hearing words.

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) again, same speech as before:
The Romans have gone there, done that, and it didn't work for them. They are examining why it didn't work and are looking to go back to what did work. Why does anyone think that copying what did not work for them will work for us? Especially when we see that our own Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, prayed in its full and official form, does work.

The Divine Liturgy is not about educating man. The Divine Liturgy is about worshiping God.

John