www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Implications of Summorum Pontificum for the RDL

The Motu Proprio and the cover letter to the Bishops in favor of the 1962 Mass and accompanying service-books each contain several items which will be significant in the discussion of the RDL, but one leapt off the screen at me as I read the cover letter to the bishops a few minutes ago:

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church�s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

These words of the Holy Father surely strengthen the position of those who wish to maintain the Ruthenian Recension without the recent innovations. I quote Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) a significant number of times in my book on the recasting of the Ruthenian Liturgy - not only is it a joy to see that the Author whom I have been quoting has not at all lost his touch, or the courage of his convictions; this has given his previous words additional force. Ad multos annos, Beatissime Pater!

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

I believe that your application of this text is very much on target. It is amazing to me that what occurred on a larger scale with the implementation of the Ordo of Paul VI without due consideration for the sensibilities of the faithful has essentially been replicated on a smaller scale (with a few minor exceptions) within the Metropolia. Wisdom dictates that we should learn not only from our own mistakes but also from the mistakes of others. What lessons can be gleaned from 40 years of turmoil, which includes, as we see here, the loss of so many good, thoughtful and spiritual people?

Come let us reason! Wisdom! Let us attend!

Gordo

Father Serge wrote: "These words of the Holy Father surely strengthen the position of those who wish to maintain the Ruthenian Recension without the recent innovations."

Amin!

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church�s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." Pope Benedict XVI, July 7, 2007.

I have a terrible feeling about this

Fr Serge quoted
This is all very well - but I fear that somone is going to say words to the effect of

" OK - but we Byzantines are not actually mentioned in so many words . Therefore it does not apply to us . "

That would bring things back to square one .

Sorry - but that's how I see it.

I hope the Pope includes us Byzantine Catholics in his letter. But will we have to wait 40 years for the Ruthenian recension to be allowed? Can we take his letter to mean that the Ruthenian recension, as celebrated by my fathers and grandfathers, cannot be forbidden? Can we say that the Ruthenian recension 'remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entire forbidden or even considered harmful? Can those who prefer the Petras recension use it, and those who prefer the Ruthenian recension use that? Sure a letter from a Pope, trumps a letter from an Archbishop?

Nick

Of course it does -- but I fear that it's the wait and see thing all over again.

Some legalistic minds will not accept it unless it is there in black and white.

"Legalistic minds" is the big problem here. Anyone remember from just a few years ago when the sitting President of the United States responded to a question--"it depends on what your definition of 'is', is."

I'm afraid our friend from Glasgow is correct--we will have to wait and see. I'm going to be optimistic and say it will all work out for the best, and it won't take very long. But I'm also not going to hold my breath...

Tim

Don't have terrible feelings - militate!

Fr. Serge

Like the monks you mentioned on another thread?

Tim

I have read, and re-read Pope Benedict�s letter to the bishops, and he speaks with compassion about those who were distressed at abuses done in the name of �renewal� of the Liturgy. He says, �And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.� Am I wrong to think he understands our situation, confused and distressed by these horrible new books, which have abbreviated, corrupted and reshaped our beautiful Liturgy?

He also asks the bishops, �Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.�

Can we hope that Archbishop Schott will take these words to heart, and allow for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the Ruthenian Recension, for those who are distressed by the Revision?

Nick

I don't see that that happening. The die is casted. It would take a miracle to reverse the RDL. The only recourse is to find other sister churches that fully celebrate the Ruthenian Recension in full.

U

Since the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio" of Pope Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum" is specifically addressed to the use of the Roman Mass prior to 1970 it will not specifically apply to Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics in the United States. It does, however, give Ruthenians in America a principle to appeal to that Rome will very likely uphold. It is very likely that Rome will grant a request from a priest or congregation of the Ruthenian Church in the United States to pray the Byzantine Liturgy according to its full and official form given in the liturgical books that are normative for us when they have just set forth the principle that Roman Catholics may now pray an older form of the Roman Mass (without special permission from a bishop). [We are not asking for a new principle, just the application of a now promulgated principle to our situation.]

Look at it this way. What will the Orthodox think (and how will it affect ecumenical relations) if they were to see Rome granting blanket permission for normal usage of an older form of the Latin Mass while denying Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics in the United States permission to celebrate the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in the form that is officially normative for the Ruthenian recension, and as is celebrated on a daily basis in Orthodox parishes everywhere?

But it will take at least one courageous, patient and persistent priest and congregation to write the letters requesting permission to the local bishop, metropolitan, Pro-Nuncio of the Oriental Congregation and eventually (if necessary) Pope Benedict XVI before the right of the Ruthenian people to have access to the Ruthenian Liturgy is respected. If a dozen priests and congregations banded together in a united request it would succeed very quickly. [And the RDL is so unpopular among our clergy and people it should be possible to quickly get dozens of priests and congregations to be part of an organized effort - sensus fidelum in action.]

This, unfortunately, will not address the issues with the translation and music. But requests to Rome to promulgate a �Liturgicam Authenticam� for the Eastern Catholic Churches would not fall on deaf ears. There is much work ahead.

We have already waited more than the 40 years. First *implement* the Ruthenian rescension, then let us see whether it needs revision. We have yet to implement the rescension as it was issued.

Indeed - to that extent, I wonder if the issue of the pre-conciliar Mass provides a close model. I think the restoration we need is to implement the Ruthenian Recension - with the leadership and encouragement of our own bishops. The status quo ante, in catechesis, music and liturgical praxis, is not necessarily what we want for the next forty years.

Jeff

Who's talking about the status quo ante? I said "implement the Ruthenian rescension." As it was issued.

Dear Starokatolyk,

The people who are saying "Make Rome order the bishops to roll back the new books" are, in effect, saying that. Convincing Rome to order the complete observance of the Ruthenian books - which they have declined to order for sixty years - seems less likely. Convincing Rome to order that the use of the Ruthenian books (or, presumably, earlier translations of them into English) be allowed is more achievable, but gets us no CLOSER to actually seeing the Ruthenian Recension celebrated. The books have been allowed for forty years. Actually seeing the Ruthenian Recension widely celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church will take education and concensus, OR episcopal action - and preferably both.

Jeff

P.S. And of course, nothing prevents any priest from using the Ruthenian Recension books in Church Slavonic, as far as I can tell - both text and rubrics. But for all the voices in favor of Church Slavonic (including mine), I have a feeling there won't be a very broad impact from the adoption of the Ruthenian Recension until it is used in English celebrations as well. We've lived with "unofficial" books for a LONG time.

ByzKat,

yes, and we've been in decline for a LONG time.

There is evidence that parishes that implement a full liturgy have flourished.

I have to come back to what I asked you in the past. There are examples of parishes that have gone from 30 people to 140 people by implementing Vespers, Matins, and a full liturgy. I'm assuming that based on your writings that Revised Liturgies must have been shown to grow parishes better then the official recension if they promulgated it. I have yet to see this and that's why I'm especially curious to learn about those that have. If you are unable to provide this info I have to wonder why you are promoting something that is not shown to work when the official recension has been shown to work? Plese clarify?

Monomakh

Canonically speaking, this analogy is flawed... "Rome" is not denying permission to celebrate the DL according to the Red Book or any "book"... the Council of Hierarchs has decided how the DL is celebrated.

BTW, the Holy Father identifies the 1962 Johannine revision of the Roman Missal as the 'Forma extraordinaria', and it may be celebrated as one of the eucharistic celebrations of a given parish. The Pauline Missal is still retained and is the ordinary form of the Latin eucharistic celebration.

What then of Card. Tisserant's letter [link] [patronagechurch.com] of 1941 ("norms") and Bishop Daniel's letter [link] [patronagechurch.com] of 1953 (... all endeavor should be employed that purity and uniformity of our rite in conformity with the desire of the Holy See should be brought into practice.")?

What books?

What books? I don't have time this morning to provide the complete list of Ruthenian Recension books published by the Holy See but it's readily available.

Language problem? Nobody ever said that these books could not be used in translation into English (or Ukrainian, or Slovak, or Tibetan or any other language). The requirement is that the translation be complete and accurate; the RDL is neither of those.

Others as well as myself have pointed out repeatedly that Rome has ordered that these books be implemented; the persistent refusal of what is now the Pittsburgh Metropolia to implement the official books is a scandal to the jaybirds - and the experience of parishes that have gone courageously forward and obeyed the higher authority, implementing the books, is proof positive that in spite of bleating to the contrary, the use of the official books does not drive people away.

At present, all that is needed is the backbone for even one parish - preferably but not necessarily with its priest - to launch a formal appeal to Rome, quoting the highly relevant sections of yesterday's two documents. At worst, Rome might rule that the RDL is an alternative, but there is no possibility that Rome would rule in favor of the attempt to forbid the use of the official Ruthenian books - or, for that matter, to insist that the official books may only be used in Church-Slavonic.

But Rome will probably not act until and unless she receives such protests, and such petitions.

Fr. Serge

My question was aimed at the time difference in the quotes I provided: (1) Rome hasn't ordered for sixty years [so ~1940: since the first printing/availability of some of the Recension books?] but (2) books have been allowed for forty years [so ~1960: since the 1965 liturgicon?]. What specifically are those of forty years versus those of sixty years?

I was struck (yesterday, when preparing my previous post) by the stipulation in Tisserant's letter that "The important thing is that the text and the rubrics be respected integrally."

I'm not a canon lawyer so I ask: Is this understood and accepted or conceded by all parties? Is this the understanding of Tisserant's letter, or is there some other directive?

But what is the will of the higher authority? The same Holy See (Oriental Congregation) that issued the books of the Ruthenian Recension (Prot. N.:1219/28 Rome, September 10, 1941) has also approved the revision (Prot. N. : 99/2001, 31 March, 2001) promulgated 6 January 2007.

There are intriguing parallels and differences with the two situations of the Roman liturgy and the Ruthenian. If one makes a combination table of old/new and official-language/translation one finds each has three entries but with a difference: there is no provision for the Latin-old in English; there is no provision for the English-new in Slavonic.

Dn. Anthony

ps A compilation of the Recension books, intended to be complete, is at Ruthenian Recension [patronagechurch.com]

I don't see how this can be the case. From the "Decree of Promulgation" in the liturgicon [my emphasis]: This book/text contains no Slavonic.

From the Forward of the "People's Book" [my emphasis]: This book/text contains no Slavonic.

Dn. Anthony

A close model? Not really, as the 1962 Missal is not normative for the Latin Church while the 1942 Ruthenian Liturgicon is normative for the Ruthenian Church (even though it has never been received and promulgated by the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh).

I agree strongly with Jeff that the restoration we need is to implement the Ruthenian Recension, with the leadership and encouragement of our own bishops. I have voiced this opinion all my adult life. Sadly, the Revised Divine Liturgy does not do this and, in fact, actually prohibits the celebration of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in our parishes.

No, they are saying no such thing. Rome has already ordered the complete observance of the official Ruthenian books (see the books themselves, the Ordo Celebrationis and the letters exchanged between Rome and our bishops for documentation). It is our bishops who have steadfastly refused to implement the directives given by Rome. The exception is Bishop Emil of Parma who promulgated the Ruthenian recension in 1970, but this was met with such resistance by the other bishops and a number of clergy that there was no follow through.

I will agree with part of this. If enough clergy and faithful appeal to Rome demanding access to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension it is likely that Rome will direct our bishops to allow this access. [And, to note again, we are not asking for access to an older form of the Liturgy (as do the Latins seeking the Liturgy according to the 1962 Missal) but to the normative Liturgy for the Ruthenian recension.]

As to translations, I do not remember anyone here advocating a permanent return to the 1965 translation. In the short term it makes sense since it readily available. In the longer term it would be very easy to publish a new edition with corrections. It is my recommendation and desire that such a new edition only change what is absolutely necessary. Then we leave it until the time when the bishops follow the Liturgical Instruction�s directive to prepare common editions and translations among Byzantines who pray the Divine Liturgy in English.

This statement is incorrect. The official Ruthenian recension has been technically officially prohibited in Parma since 1988, in Passaic since 1995 and in Van Nuys since about 3 years ago, with the first round of reforms being mandated by Bishop Andrew Pataki. There have been a few parishes that ignored the rulings but it is incorrect to state that the official Liturgy has been allowed. For most of our history in the United States the official Ruthenian Liturgy has been, at best, discouraged (see my comments elsewhere about Bishop Mihalak).

I agree.

We see in the few places where pastors have managed to implement in a full form that those parishes were thriving. I�ve seen a parish go from celebrating an abbreviated Liturgy (the lowest of �Low Masses�) with 30 people to a full and official Ruthenian Liturgy (with every litany and rubric taken correctly) with 140 in just a few years (and stay at 140 over 10 years all while burying another 140 people). That parish was also full of young people and had a number of people driving past other parishes to be part of the parish. [Contrast this to the Munhall Cathedral where the Liturgy (for several years now an experiment of the parts of the RDL) is not spirit-filled, few sing and people are leavingb despite a talented pastor and singers.]

My �Action Plan� for our Church remains the same as it was 20 years ago:

-The Council of Hierarchs promulgates the Ruthenian recension as normative.

-The full Divine Liturgy is implemented at the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals, and wherever and whenever the bishops visit a parish, and at all eparchial liturgical celebrations (with a special educational program).

-A new edition of the 1965 Liturgicon is printed (with only those corrections that are absolutely required) and used until common editions are available for all Byzantines.

-Bishops establish a �bare minimum� (roughly everything in the Levkulic Pew Book). Print new pew books with the complete text of the Divine Liturgy and gather cantors to prepare music where the music serves the text and (for evangelization purposes) is attractive to the American ear.

I have no doubt that as the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals are transformed into vibrant parishes there will be a �We want this in our parish� movement from the other parishes and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy will rise closer and closer to that given in the official Ruthenian recension books.

I do not believe this is accurate. Can Jeff or anyone else support this with documentation? I have been told that no direction has been given in writing. Several priests have indicated that at least in Passaic the verbal directives from the bishop and liturgical commission members have been unclear. Most Passaic priests I have talked with seem to understand the verbal directives as that the Divine Liturgy may still be taken in Slavonic but must follow the Revised Rubrics. Some have indicated that they feel that it would be disobedient to use Slavonic since the promulgation technically prohibits use of any Slavonic Liturgicons and / or pew books and the bishops have not given them approval in writing to do so. At best, the directives here have been unclear.

I thank Father Deacon John for his post.

I both agree and disagree with what he has posted.

Yes, the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs is the promulgator of the Revised Divine Liturgy. The promulgation is on their authority. It is they, not Rome, who are prohibiting the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the official Ruthenian recension. Rome has issued the official books of the Ruthenian recension with directives that they be implemented. The Ruthenian Bishops in America have steadfastly refused to promulgate these books. Bishop Emil Mihalik did promulgate them in 1970 but the other bishops (and a number of clergy) reacted so strongly against his promulgation that it was effectively stifled.

Canon 40 �1 of the Eastern Canons states: �Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.� The Revised Divine Liturgy mandated by the Council of Hierarchs introduces changes that are not organic and harm the unity of Christians. The rubrical and textual changes are not organic (one cannot legislate organic change in advance). This Revision does not serve the mutual goodwill and unity of Christians because these changes make the Ruthenian Catholic Church liturgically different than other Byzantine Catholic Churches, effectively removing the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America from the Ruthenian Recension. They also make us different then other Orthodox Churches. The Revision actually prohibits the �faithful protection and accurate observance� of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the books published by Rome.

My earlier post built on the principle now given by the Holy Father. To restate it a bit more concisely, if the Holy Father has now ruled that those Roman Catholics who seek access to an older form of the Roman Mass have a legitimate spiritual right to it, it is very likely the Holy Father will allow the petitions of those of us who seek access to the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy.

Rome has identified the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and the other liturgical books that followed) as the normative (ordinary) form of the Eucharistic celebration in the Ruthenian Church. The Council of Hierarchs does not have the authority to overrule Rome in this. If the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh still considers itself as a member of the Ruthenian recension then the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy published by Rome is still the normative Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Church in America. If the faithful believe that the Council of Hierarchs have overstepped their authority in issuing liturgical directives the faithful have the right to petition those in authority over the Council of Hierarchs. In the end, I believe that Rome will rule that the Council of Hierarchs may allow an abbreviated Divine Liturgy (i.e., set a minimum) but that they do not have the right to prohibit the celebrating of the Divine Liturgy according to its normative form.

Slava Isusu Christu!

For clarification purposes, could you or someone else explain exactly who are the members of the Ruthenian Council of Heirarchs? Information of this type is sometimes buried deeply on websites and requires lots of going from one link to another. It took me a good deal of time to find the members of the group who came up with the RDL. I had head several names, but had never seen a complete list until I found it on the Patronage Mother of God Byzantine Catholic Church in Baltimore MD. As a furthe question, I can't find it but remember someone saying that there was a crticism of the RDL on one church's website. I thought it was the Patronage Church in Baltimore, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know which church's website had that review?

And will anyone be listening to the RDL tonight, live from Parma?

Tim

The four bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh; see Byzantine Catholic Metropolita of Pittsburgh [patronagechurch.com]

Dn. Anthony

Yet, it seems as if that is what they have done (claiming Rome's direct approval too). Thank you administrator, for your posts, and for stating the problem so clearly.

I've been reading the Pope's decree again today, and the letter to the Bishops. Appealing to the principles of the Motu Proprio is certainly appealing. But Benedict is only offering the John XXIII missal as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There will be one Rite, but two Forms (ordinary and extraordinary).

Until the Revision of the Divine Liturgy by Archbishop Schott, Rome had always been clear what our ORDINARY form of the Divine Liturgy should be. By appealing to Rome asking that what is ORDINARY (that is, the whole Liturgy without abbreviations, corruptions, revisions, invented rubrics and inclusive language), be granted extra-ordinary status, is a petition I don't really like. It accepts that the Revised Liturgy is o.k., not only as an alternative, but as the ordinary version.

But the Revision is an error, and it is full of errors. I think petitions to Rome must not be based on the Motu Proprio, but it must object to the whole idea of an agenda driven revision of the Liturgy, as promulgated by Archbishop Schott. It takes the Church out of the Ruthenian Recension, and is a corruption of our heritage. It is just wrong, and not 'another form' of our one 'lex credendi'.

The Motu Proprio, shows that Benedict understands these questions, and may indicate that he would have a sympathetic ear to the crisis of conscience that we are having, by this terrible Revision of our beautiful Liturgy. But the principles of the Motu Proprio itself don't really apply directly. We are not simply petitioning for another 'form' of our Liturgy to be allowed. We are petitioning for our Liturgy to be restored to us, and that this revision (corruption) be forbidden.

Nick

No. It would be too painful.

Deacon Anthony is quite right. "Sole liturgical text" is a very clear and self-explanatory term, and I know of several pastors who have taken that quite literally. It does not at all provide for any other usage than the New Rite books if taken at face value. If any variation is allowed by the hierarchy, then the absolute value of "sole liturgical text" comes into serious question.

I knew the four Eparchs would be on the Council. But are they the only ones? Are they the sole members?

Tim

Father Deacon Bless!

you are correct in your analysis.

I raised this question and issue in the past.

Professor J. Michael Thompson posted the following:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=234185#Post234185


"Sole liturgical text" and what Professor Thompson passed on from Archbishop Basil are two different things.


Monomakh

I think you mean that *legally* there is nothing to prevent the usage.

In practice, it is far more dangerous than you suggest.

Yes. There is no official Metropolitan proscription for taking a Slavonic liturgy with choral music that is a part of the promulgation letters for the new Byzantine order.

Are liturgies taken entirely in Slavonic proscripted by any of the individual bishops?

Look at the mess that has been created on this Forum with the quasi-official ministrations of Father David and Professor Tompson contradicting the promulgation letters!!

What of mixed liturgies in English and Slavonic?

All pretty dicey as far as I can see.

Keystone Cops!!...if it weren't so damaging...

M.

The letter from Cardinal Tisserant promulgating the Ruthenian Recension liturgical books is readily available and has been right along for those who know where to look; the original Italian was published in Orientalia Christian Periodica in Rome.

But just where is the letter designated "Prot. N. : 99/2001, 31 March, 2001"? How could it have authorized a text which did not exist in March 2001? And how is it possible to "promulgate" a letter while keeping the text a secret?

This resembles the USSR at its worst - secret laws, unavailable to anyone, but enforced by the police. Civilized, intelligent people know perfectly well that people are not bound to obey such phony "laws"; there is a right to have reasonable access to the laws which seek to require this or that form of behaviour, and/or prohibit some other form of behaviour (the only exception involves what is called malum in se: no normal, grown-up person needs to be told that it is unacceptable to commit murder, to steal old ladies' handbags in the street, to abuse children, to burglarize a house, and so forth. But even then open laws are needed to lay down the appropriate penalties, and to determine the various degrees of offences. Murder, for example, is normally dealt with by the laws of the state where the killing took place - but since the assassination of President Kennedy there is a federal law which over-rides the state law and which also prohibits the murder of the President (and, I believe, certain other high federal officials). So someone who assassinates the President and lives to tell the tale will be tried in federal court, unlike most other murderers.

No one is going to argue that serving the Divine Liturgy according to the official books promulgated - in public acts - by the Holy See constitutes malum in se! Nor is the Council of Hierarchs of one Metropolia an authority on the same level of the Holy See. So until the representatives of this Council of Hierarchs produce an oficial letter from the Holy See, specifically abrogating the Ruthenian Recension liturgical books and mandating books produced by the said Council of Hierarchs, it is not and cannot be "forbidden" by legitimate Church authority to serve in accordance with those books.

Fr. Serge

There is a record in this very subsection of the Forum here of Father David responding to a direct question by me saying that there has not been one word changed in the liturgy between the 2001 authorization letter from the Vatican, to the present moment.

Not one word changed.



When the governance is tight and crisp and clear, there is less opportunity to abuse power and authority, than there is when the rules and regulations are unclear and indistinct or hidden in some other manner.


I think that very truth can be turned around on the clergy to their most severe, and in some cases life threatening, detriment, and I think most of them are not in a position to "test" the boundaries with any one of our bishops.

Mary

The assertion that not one word has been changed since 2001 is demonstrably false.

Fr Serge

I wish I could disagree with you Mary, but I think it is true. My pastor said that he was forced to put out the new books. (He had said he wasn't going to.)

He said there was verbal intimidation, and his loyalty and priesthood were called into question. He is very angry about it. There was real bullying. He said he had never seen anything like it in all his years in the priesthood. He is not too far from his retirement, and he didn't want to put that in jeopardy. I've noticed he is taking a different attitude to things, and he doesn't seem happy celebrating the Liturgy any more. I can't bear to be there with him, knowing how he feels about our parish. He used to love the Church, now he certainly has mixed feelings.

He says there is a small group in the Church that really closed ranks around this unwanted revision. He always knew they were there, but he didn't realize how much power they had. They are not afraid of lies and falsehoods, all they care about is getting their own way.

I think he would ask Rome to intervene, but he is afraid that Rome will do nothing, and that the threats against 'disobedient' clergy will be carried out.

We love our pastor, and we can see that this whole thing has taken a terrible toll on him. I think it is disgraceful.

Nick

The Holy Father has just demonstrated that he is not going to do nothing, even in the face of much more powerful opposition than the Pittsburgh Council of Hierarchs could possibly muster. Tell your pastor that he has no reason to be afraid, and good reason to depend on support from Rome.

Fr. Serge

Now there's a potentially amusing idea - serve the complete Divine Liturgy, using the few parts which remain in the RDL in English, and doing everything else in Church-Slavonic! Ah, the joys of creativity!

Fr. Serge

The recent allegation that I said there were no changes since the 2001 regognitio is an incorrect reading of my response (# 229233, April 3, 2007). What I said is that any changes were in conformity with the recognitio:

[Text of my response] "In regard to Elijahmaria's question - five years transpired between the recognitio and the promulgation, most of it due to a change of administration. How many of the "changes decried here" were added after the recognitio? None - zero - nothing - every change made was, in fact, because of the recognitio and in conformity with its recommendations. Nothing was "slipped in" to "water down" the Liturgy."

Perhaps someone on the Forum can provide us with the text of Rome's apporval of the 1965 text?

Fr. David,

Did you not come across this letter when researching your paper "A Survey of the Liturgical Translations of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia"? In the paper you only mention:

How does one find historical documents in a Church that either closes its records or destroys them?

At least now there is a date...and from the horses mouth...presumably.

Mary

For some of our older priests, Father, all a bishop has to do is remove him, stop health benefits and the man could be dead before help comes.

I know several priests in the past decade who were denied benefits and had to hire a canon lawyer to gain due process. Fortunately most of those men had been able to establish their own cushion, through inheritance or by not having to support their own parishes by putting money back into the parish from their own private funds. Not all of our priests are capable of going it alone, and I don't see too many people stepping up to the plate to fill in the shortfalls. Most of what I see in that regard is denial that anything could possibly be wrong.

This is not for you Father: but I do wish to take the opportunity to point out to those in authority in this Church that putting one's own funds into the Church accounts is not co-mingling of funds. In most places that is called CHARITY!! Priests are very rarely punished for giving in charity, in other Churches that I know well enough to know what priests do with some of their money.

Mary

I happily stand corrected, Father David, in order to point out to people that the excesses of the Novus Ordo were also done in the "spirit" of the documents of Vatican II...and we all know where the various liturgical commission's strict adherence to recommendation has led.

The immediate past Prefect of the OC was a class mate of Bishop Andrew's and so many things have "passed" by the scrutiny of old friendship Father David. And I would venture to say that even you would not claim, in private, that it has all been to the good, though much has been advantageous in the promulgation of the new Byzantine order.

You Father David should be able to provide us with the text of Rome's approval of the 1965 text since you are closest to the history cabinet. But perhaps it does not exist after all, and your reference to it was to a phantasm of your imagination.

Mary

I think this is an excellent proposal.

We have available Card. Tisserant's letter to the Ruthenian Ordinaries that accompanied the printings of the Ruthenian Recension books, but we do not have the text of Rome's correspondence for the 1965 translation; the 1965 liturgicon simply states
Likewise for the 2007 liturgicon we only have

The Oriental Congregation has in the past published its correspondence with our bishops apparently independent of their disseminating the text -- a note added to the translation of Tisserant's letter says
I have wondered if the the letters for the 1965 and 2007 approvals have also been so published. I don't have access now to a good church library to check. I'd bet (hope) that if any library had access to publications containing these letters, if they have been published, it would be St. Cyril & Methodius. If they are so published and found I would be happy to make them available on the web as part of a project to highlight important documents in the life of our Church.

Dn. Anthony

Father David,

You previously posted on this forum that the 2001 approval letter was a private and privileged communication between Rome and the bishops. You said that the bishops have determined that the clergy and faithful have no right to see the letter from Rome authorizing the revisions. You said that anyone who asked to see a copy was in effect accusing the bishops of lying. You also stated that you had a copy and even copied out a sentence while claiming clergy and laymen had no right to see it.

Are you saying that the 1964 approval letter is public and someone can post a copy? If it is public surely you, as the leading member of the "Revise the Liturgy Committee" have a copy you can post?

Are you serious in asking someone to post a copy of a letter you know to be forbidden?

It looks like that you are taunting people.

DJ

Nicholas,

"But the Revision is an error, and it is full of errors."

This is also written by many Latin Traditionalists regarding the 1970 Missal and it is this same type of talk that Pope Benedict clearly rejects by stating:

"The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

For those who wish to see the 65 Liturgicon used, or even restored as the normative Usage I would suggest not being overly polemical about it and simply state their wish for the full Ruthenian Recension.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

The language of the new Byzantine order does not even manage to be grammatical. Somebody wasn't lookin' very carefully.

It is hardly a polemic to question what precisely was approved in 2001 and what is the difference between what was approved and what was promulgated.

If what is with us today is what was approved then I can say without hesitation that somebody in the OC was snoozin'!!

Whether that was a planned nap or a spontaneous one or not one at all, has yet to be demonstrated, but the errors in text and catechesis are severe enough for me to say that either the OC was asleep at the wheel or the Father David is not telling the whole truth and nuthin' but the truth.

It is not a polemic to say "What the dickens is this mess?" when clearly there is a textual and theological mess placed in front of us as spiritual food.

I don't eat rot out of the grocery store and I surely do not expect to find it served up liturgically!!

Mary

The Missal of Paul VI was not an 'error', but it's translations and general implementation were.

There's not much wrong with the Recensio Rutena, but what has been done to it in the RDL is an 'error'.

I have never called the Missal of Paul VI an error, but it is often erroneously called the Mass of Vatican II. It is not, and was never, the mass of the council. The Vatican II mass is the missal of 1964-1965.

I was refering not to the translation but to the abbreviations and rubrical changes. Both the 70 Missal and 07 Liturgicon have them in respect to the books that preceded them. Some have claimed that the 07 Liturgicon is a different Liturgy or Rite and I reject this, as Pope Benedict rejects this claim against the 70 Missal. It is certainly a new Usage but still the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom/St. Basil.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I wonder how many people who left the Latin Rite for the BCC will now return.

Saying that a liturgical form is a new order is not the same as calling it a different rite.

I suspect that about as many as are told to "go home"...maybe more.

M.

I agree Mary - we should be more properly using terms such as "New Usage" or "New Ordo" rather than "New Rite".

I would suggest the term "the Missal of Pope Paul VI" or something similar. That is both accurate and non-controversial. Most people who attend the "Novus Ordo" have never heard the phrase in their lives and have no idea what it means.

Fr. Serge

Dear Deacon Lance,

I never suggested that the '70s Missal was full of errors, but I've never really studied it. I have read something about ICEL, and the problems with the translation into English. I think it is generally felt to be inadequate, and the bishops are planning to correct it. That is the directive of 'Liturgiam authenticam' which asks for clear, elegant, accurate, faithful, and complete translations. ICEL clearly failed to do that, which is a problem.

The errors are in the translations and revisions in the new Liturgicon. It is a revision, and a bad one too. It is not an accurate translation, it introduces controversial rubrics, errors, abbreviations, reorganizations, and agenda driven language, that has no place whatsoever in our Liturgical books. It is full of errors, and they have been pointed out.

Is my language polemical? Yes, I suppose so. But I will not call what is bad, good. And I will not call what is good, bad. The revision is a mistake, an error, and it is full of errors.

I object to any suggestion that we should be encouraged by the Pope's new permission to use the old Latin Liturgy, because I don't want the '65 Liturgicon to be 'permitted' as an alternative at certain times and certain places to the revised Liturgy.

I want the Revised Liturgy banned, trashed, and condemned as a mistake, also full of mistakes.

The Ruthenian recension, and our beautiful heritage has been banned and forbidden, outlawed and replaced. The language of the promulgation is harsh and uncompromising, giving no sympathy for those who find this liturgical revolution difficult. The Liturgy that was dear to me, and the songs that have been my prayer for 40 years, have been tossed out by my Church. I find it abusive and offensive and deeply hurtful.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. But it is the Church that has used a harsh tone, my pastor called it 'bullying'. We had hoped he would not cave in to the pressure and would leave our prayers in peace, just the way they were. But his loyalty to the Church, and his loyalty to the priesthood were questioned! Our pastor is almost 50 years a priest, and he doesn't deserve to be spoken to like that.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. But there is no sign that anyone is listening, to polite petitions, reasoned letters, or public complaints.

You ask me to use a more polite tone. Well my letters to Archbishop Schott were very polite, and carefully courteous. But he didn't even send a postcard to say that he got them and read them. There was no answer at all. Was that polite?

My polite tone is finished. These books have to be scrapped, they're a bad implementation of a bad idea.

I dare Archbishop Schott to call a clergy meeting of our Metropolia. I challenge him to have a gathering of lay people, elected representatives from the parishes. I dare him to gather together all the parish advisory boards, and hear in an open meeting the feeling of the people about these books.

If I were there, I would be polite. But I am grieving, my Liturgy has been trashed by this committee. These books are awful, and we deserve better.

The Pope's new letter is not really helpful in our situation, this is not a case of two legitimate forms of the one Liturgical tradition. I think the revision is illegitimate, and a bastard form of the Liturgy. I don't think it should exist alongside our beautiful Ruthenian recension.

I will admit it, my tone is polemical, but I loved my Liturgy the way it was, and now it has been taken from me. And there was no funeral, there was no sermon or eulogy, there was no singing of 'eternal memory'. It is just gone.

I just don't know what else to do, or how else to express my sorrow.

Nick

Perhaps even jotting some thoughts down as you have will be of some comfort, and have recourse to the Mother of God "Joy of all who Sorrow".

Well, yes. I suppose. It is funny, but I always felt comfort in Church. I used to go to Church, when I needed to be supported in a difficult season. I would sing, and I would hear my grandmother singing next to me, I would hear that generation of faith, and sing the way they sang. Now... I go to Church, and their voices are silent. It may sound strange, but my grandmother is no long there.

I will look to the "joy of all who sorrow" and pray. I still hope my Church will come to its senses.

Nick

I agree with Nicholas 1000%!

In our church there used to be rows upon rows of grandmothers singing next to their children and grandchildren, even great-grandchildren......the phrase here is USED TO BE!

We pray to the founders and benefactors of the particular church. What would they be saying now?

Probably,they are saying please treasure and hold onto the traditions and please more Church Slavonic.

I attended my first Orthodox Divine Liturgy yesterday (OCA). I spoke with the priest afterwards for three hours. We discussed Church Fathers, Church history, Divine Liturgy, etc. It was refreshing!

An interesting perspective from a traditional Catholic site in Malta:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-orthodox-church-and-summorum.html

BTW, today is the sixth anniversary of the start of the implementation of this motu proprio.