www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I like the changes to the Divine Liturgy, anybody else agree?

I, for one, like the changes in our Divine Liturgy. It is taking some getting accustomed to but overall it seems to be going well. The verbal "flavor" actually seems richer. We have a young priest, Father Andrew, who has quietly and humbly re-energized the Byzantine Catholic community here in Erie County PA. Life is good. My only wish is that the petitions, answered "Grant it O Lord" were included in our Divine Liturgy.
I wish everyone could get over their bias. I am sure the Divine Liturgy of the 6th, 10th, 17th and 20th centuries have very little in common with each other. The bad news for some of us is that it an ever evolving piece of work. And that is the good news for some of us.

You guies up in Erie County do have a great priest with Fr. Andrew!

I've known him since he was a seminarian, and periodically come up to Erie to teach the dance group. I was just there last Saturday for Liturgy.

He has re-energized the churches up there.

Anthony,

I've only attended a few Liturgies using the RDL, and my overall reaction is mildly positive. Although I dislike the use of inclusive language in a number of places, my only real complaint is having to look up the number for which melody to use for different parts of the Liturgy (it would be nice if the cantor would announce the number).

I've noticed that the melodies include more notes than were previously used and seem to have a nicer flow. Some repetition of phrases has been eliminated, but that is not always a bad thing. For example, in the proclamation, "We praise You, we bless You, we thank You O Lord, and we pray to You, our God," the third phrase was formerly repeated twice and the fourth one three times--something we have never done in the Ukrainian usage.

I do like those petitions, and prior to the RDL I never even saw them included as an option in a Ruthenian pew book.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Good afternoon.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As I stated in a post from a month or so back, our mission's experience with the RDL has been positive. I personally do not have any problem with the inclusive language. The only issue I have with the revision is in the Communion Prayer, specifically the phrase: ...when You come in Your Kingdom. It just doesn't sound like correct English. I don't understand why "into" was replaced by "in".

On the music side, one of the melody options for the "Hymn to the Only-Begotten Son" is just impossible to sing for the average layguy.

Question... the MCI site graciously publishes the "music" for upcoming Sundays. I've noticed that (for example, the Sunday following the Holy Transfiguration) that there were two tropars, two kondaks, two prokemenons, and two alleluias (the first for the Sunday and the second for the Feast). It is my understanding that only three total tropars are to be sung (e.g.,2 troparion/1 kontakion) and one prokemenon and one alleluia. If this is so, then why post all of them? Seems a little confusing to the average layguy.

Also related to the MCI site... I've noticed new opening/"gathering" hymns. Although the BCA parishes I've attended/visited have always used an opening hymn, this practice I understand is not correct. The hymns that folks sing prior to the DL were put there in cases where matins/orthos were not celebrated. In fact, the hymn(s) should be ending as the priest begins the incensing for the DL. If we are returning to our "Greek" tradition, then we should not be encouraging the use of these hymns to begin/open the Liturgy.

P.S. Excuse my spelling/grammar of Greek terms.

I'm really glad you like the changes, and the RDL. (But, if you had a chance to experience the Ruthenian Recension, I bet you'd like that more.)

Although I don't like the Revised Liturgy, I am not arguing to have 'my way'.

I don't think our Liturgy should be based on what I like, or you like, or Fr. Andrew likes, or Fr. David likes, or even what the Archbishop likes.

That is a bad way of organizing a Church.

I don't think we should reorganize the Byzantine Liturgy according to my 'likes' or anyone elses either.

I think we should simply accept the books of our Ruthenian Recension as they are. They are fine.

Of course, we need a clear, beautiful, accurate, careful, precise, and prayerful English translation (without additions, deletions, reorganizations of any kind).

But not even because it is what I would 'like'. But because it is the right thing to do.

Revising the Liturgy according to anybody's 'likes' is the wrong thing to do, and will lead us all down a road that will satisfy none of us.

Nick

My reaction is mixed. Some things I like, some I really dislike.

In our parish, we've worked hard to make its adoption as painless as possible, and I think we have succeeded. There may be difficulties with the new book (indeed, I could make a long list), but those who grouse that it is unsingable, or that the book is unfollowable, are overstating things in order to support their position. Such statements, which are clearly not true, will cause people to be less receptive to other true statements about problems with the RDL.

I do wish the galleys of the book had been vetted before going to the printer. We could have improved it much with simple things like an index or running headers. Alas.

The root meaning of "kingdom" is the authority and office of a king; then by extension, it is used to mean the territory over which this kingship or kingdom is exercised. Think about the Lord's Prayer and "Thy kingdom come"; just as we say God will "come in glory", we say he will "come in his kingdom".


Out of curiosity - you're thinking of the third (C) setting? The first is the one we used all the time at my original parish, and the second is the one we used at my present parish; while the third is a setting of the old melody "for the departed" - listen [metropolitancantorinstitute.org]
in Slavonic. It certainly is less "Western" than the others, but this is often the case with the funeral melodies.


The Typikon (by which I mean the Slavonic (Nikonian) Sabaite Typikon, together with the Galician and Rusyn commentaries that describe its traditional use in the Greek Catholic churches) prescribe several troparia and kontakina, two prokeimena, two sets of Alleluia verses, two Epistles, and two Gospels (!) for quite a few Sundays in the year.

Father David Petras' typikon provides these rules, along with a set of pastoral recommendations which simplify the system SOMEWHAT. For example, on a Sunday which is also the feast day of a saint of "polyeleos" rank or above:


Points to note:

When two prokeimena are sung, the first is NOT repeated after the final verse associated with it; and the Alleluia is treated the same way. When there are two readings, only the first is announced. This is briefly explained in Father David's Typikon. The Cantor's Companion provides some additional guidance.

Now, it is a fact that MANY parishes customarily take only one at most two troparia, one kontakion, one prokeimenon, Alleluia, Epistle, and Gospel. But the normative Typikon for the Byzantine Catholic Church directs the use of a fuller form, and describes the "fullest" form. The publications of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute generally follow the "recommended format" in Father David's Typikon; the hymns for the Divine Liturgy are almost always to be found in the Green Book, but it can take some page turning. (The old Lekvolic pew book simply omitted many of them, and parishes used John Vernoski's leaflets or other sources for the pre-festive and saints' hymns.)

Of course, if your parish priest directs that only 2 or 3 troparia/kontakia are to be sung, that's what you do; and I am familiar with a number of parishes where this is the case.


According to the Cantor's Companion, prepared and approved by the Music Commission: "The custom of singing hymns before and after the Divine Liturgy is greatly beloved by the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and is encouraged." This is followed by some guidelines for choice of hymns. On the other hand, singing of such hymns at Communion is discouraged, except for those specifically associated with Holy Communion - and that only after the appointed liturgical Communion Hymn and its psalm verses have been sung.

I hope this helps!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Does anyone know where one can get the ACROD typikon? I'm assuming that one is prepared yearly as well. It would be interesting to see how they order the services, especially for such days? Is it available online anywhere? Also is Fr. Petras' available online or does one have to buy a hardcopy edition?

I at first supported the revision because I support our hierarchy. Then when it was implemented I started to have second thoughts. However, it truly is growing on me and I am glad I am "sticking it out" as I would have regret leaving. It is amazing how God can work inside of us when we are not so hung up on the material part of the Liturgy but rather transcend to the Immaterial.

The novus ordo grew on the Latin Catholics for decades--and now they are beginning to see the many errors.

So are you implying that I am fooling myself and that I will "come to my senses"? I should have said that the defense I put up is slowly coming down as I accept that my hierarchs are much wiser than I.

No, no, no my friend. I cannot read hearts. Everyone has their own blessed path to follow. You must follow yours.
I do not believe that hierarchs are wiser because they are hierarchs. The laity is every bit a part of the Church as are the clergy and hierarchs. Yet the laity and the clergy were shut out of the revision process. To me, that is suspect. But then again, this is no longer my Church, so I am no longer emotionally invested. We will be Chrismated into Holy Orthodoxy this coming Sunday, September 23!

Hooray!!!

Congratulations on your upcoming Chrismation Recluse. I hope Orthodoxy is as spiritually uplifting for you and yours as it has been for me.

Thank you Etnick. There is great peace and joy in our family. I do not have the words to express how grateful I am to be entering the Holy Orthodox Church!

Switching "men to "us" and singing a different tune cannot whatsoever be compared to the enormus changes of the Roman Mass. That is like comparing the changes of a 2000 Ford F-150 and 2007 Ford F-150 with the changes of a 1944 B-17 and a 2007 F/A-22.

I am unfamiliar with this process, as I am a Latin Catholic.
Have you not been Chrismated before?

Congratulations Recluse and Welcome Home!!!

Chris

Usually, anyone who has had a trinitarian baptism,(Father,Son, and Holy Spirit,), and who wants to convert to Orthodoxy is received by Chrismation. It can vary by jurisdiction, and certain circumstances, but this is how it is usually done.

The person is not rebaptized, unless of course they were never baptized.

I, for one, am delighted with the new books. I'm a fairly recent convert (2 yrs.) with choral experience, and it is wonderful to have notes. Although the switch-over hasn't always been easy, most people have been good sports about it, and the congregation is following the music quite well. People are even following the changeable parts, in contrast to the previous noticeable reduction in volume whenever we would get to the troparion and kontakion. Sure, it would be wonderful if it all could be oral tradition like in the old days, but people move around a lot more and many of us are in small parishes located in distant West Coast cities and filled with people who didn't grow up Byzantine Catholic. Our pastor was instrumental in the development of the green book, and he is very knowledgeable and trustworthy.

Finally, I'm enough of a theologian that I switched to the Catholic Church, but I'm not so much of a theologian that I really care one way or the other about the inclusive language. I can understand the Creed, and so can my kids, and we can all sing it consistently. Right now, that's all that matters to me.

Welcome to the forum Gary.
Yes, the layout of the book is exemplary -- though I hear it's not easy to read by elderly -- specifically the red type is difficult for many, and some say it is too heavy to hold for the entire Divine Liturgy. But other than that, it's good.

Since you're new to the Byzantine Church, you may want to educate yourself on why this translation needs to be rescinded. Not only is it not true to our beloved full Ruthenian Recension, it contains many inaccuracies, including the inclusive language, which is not so inclusive. To begin, you may want to read more about the holes in this new Liturgy in the forum titled, "Books" which examines further Fr. Serge's deeper look into this translation.

Author: Serge Keleher

Title: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy � 1
The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

Stauropegion Press
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Cost: $20 + $4 per book shipping & handling.

This book is a commentary on the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy according to the 12 October 2004 �final version�.

Since this book is relevant to the current discussion on the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy I am creating this thread as a placeholder for specific discussions of the book


Have a nice day.

After talking with laity at the Mt. Macrina Pilgrimage (Otpust), there still are a number of parishes of the Ruthenian Metropolia who have yet to use the new RDL pew book.

Ungcsertezs

The Lord helps those who help themselves!

Tick Tock, Tick, Tock......... Get 'em while you still can! LOL!!

Alexandr

Interesting. I was speaking to someone who attended the Otpust. He told me that he spoke to at least 100 people and not one of them was pleased with the RDL. What does it all mean?

Don't know - but the congregational singing at the outdoor liturgies was certainly solid, and I heard hardly any confusion over the words of the ordinary parts of the Divine Liturgy; I had expected more. Some of the cantors were actually the only ones whose singing was noticeably off; at one Liturgy, cantors in the back row sang at least three different endings for Tone 5, and two of them said that was normal, and they hadn't bothered to use the new books yet.

Jeff

I would respectfully suggest that an individual who approached "at least 100 people" at this year's Uniontown Pilgrimage and asked the question: "Are you pleased with the Revised Divine Liturgy?" (or some derivation thereof) may not be the best source for an unbiased perspective on the subject.

You know, Cantor JFK, your post really cracks me up.

Who will the Bishop's believe if they won't believe the people in the pews or the people standing on the grass at Uniontown? Those are actual people whose worship has changed drastically in the past few months. Just because the majority of Byzantine Catholics are not in love with the RDL, doesn't make them biased. Opinionated, yes; biased no.

Maybe the Bishops need to return to the drawing board and give the Ruthenian's what they really need -- the FULL Ruthenian Recension, complete with Vesper, Matins, the Hours and all the liturgical practices that go along with these beautiful services.

Rip out the pews, install icon screens with curtains, etc. so that the true beauty of our beloved Byzantine Church can be experienced by ALL -- not just by those lucky enough to have a brave priest.

I agree that the full Byzantine liturgy according to the Typikon of the Great Church is wonderful. The reality is that this incarnation of the liturgy has been memorized by the people and has served during centuries of persecution when no books and few "utensils" were available. It kept not only the Church, but also the ethnicity of the people alive.

I recall stories of Ukrainians stealing away into the woods to have liturgy in the snow to avoid the police. No books needed -the people knew it all. The tradition was critical to the faith.

In our circumstances, with fully appointed churches with heat and air-conditioning and lights, it's different.

The essence of the true beauty lies in the peoples' collective participation with their priest. If the words get screwed up, or the melody is in the 'wrong' tone for that Sunday, it doesn't really matter. It's the people and the priest praying together.

Unfortunately many non-old-country Ruthenians or Easterns in the diaspora don't have a knowledge of the 'full' recension since so much of it got lost in the Slavic church's Latinizations/simplifications of the 20th century. Vespers is for Lent, maybe; Matins/Orthros? What's that? (Greeks behave as if we were all still in Greece.)

So, perhaps the "new" recension is a way to establish a fuller recognition of what the past reality was. The clear challenge is to have our priests and educators engage in a full-blown educational barrage of what the Byzantine church is really about - without scaring the community.

As for pews, who really cares? Just because our great-grandparents didn't have them, why should our use of them be a scandal? Same with electric lights. (Some ultra-traditionalist Orthodox rail against their use.) Greeks don't use curtains, so how holy can it be?

The essense of Byzantine Christianity is the spirituality revealed in the liturgical prayers and practices. Let's focus on those and leave the minor logistical practices alone.

Just a thought.

Blessings!

Dr John

So, it's primarly education.

Stephanie,

Please wake up! It was a nice dream, wasn't it! There are plenty of Orthodox churches with pews! Some don't even have the ripidia (liturgical fans) behind the Altar!

You're not alone in this mission!

We have ripidia behind the altar in our Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Church.

Dear Dr. John --

I find, even with my own kids, that experience is the best teacher. Wouldn't you agree? That's how I became interested in learning more about our beloved Byzantine liturgical practices, by attending an Orthodox church.

You'll get more people on-board by showing them, than by telling them.



My parish celebrated the full recension, complete with all the Litanies, and the entrances done correctly, and no one was scarred. We even sang with fervor the word mankind, and it didn't cause an upheaval.



Yes! The prayers are the cake, the practices are the icing on the cake. Somehow, adding those finishing touches to our beloved Divine Liturgy makes it that much more holy. It allows you to experience the Divine Liturgy on a different level. I hope you'll get to experience it someday so that you may become a proponent of our liturgical practices from first hand experience. It truly is something to experience!

P.S. If you want to know about what shoddy liturgical practices can do to a person's faith, just PM Etnick -- he'll share a little story that relates to his post.

Dear Cantor JFK,

I will only respond by saying that this person was not a layman.

Surely you must know by now that the majority of the BCC is not pleased with the changes. Friends of mine who are still in the BCC continue to grieve.

Dear Recluse,

Indeed - and quite a few are still unhappy about the elimination of daily "Lenten Masses" in favor of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and grade-school First Communions in favor of infant Communion. At Uniontown I heard a middle-aged priest lamenting the loss of Sacred Heart devotions and Supplicatia/Benediction, and blaming the seminary and Liturgy Commission for "taking away our holy traditions". Others complain about the mandating of the Third Antiphon - and say that the Beatitudes are "in the wrong place" in the new book, and are supposed to be sung at Communion "like we always have"! I think you would need a better survey to find out how many people are displeased about what, rather than assuming that all complaints are in the direction you'd agree with.

I have heard MANY complaints over the past year - and acceding to most of them would have taken us further AWAY from the restoration that Stephanie is calling for, rather than toward it.

While I think a restoration could take place at a slightly faster pace than our moderator has recommended - he suggested that added verses at the prokeimenon was enough of a change for one year, as I recall - and the bishops have certainly made a number of positive changes in the past decade - I agree with Dr. John: education of the laity in our liturgy is key.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I assure you, my friend is as "Orthodox" as they come.

Your example of Eastern Catholic priests who are upset about the elimination of Latinizations is something else entirely.

I'm fairly certain that if a legitimate poll were taken, the RDL would not fare so well. I know that you are pleased with it--and I expect that others are also pleased. But I do not think it is the majority--that is only my opinion, of course.

But what would be the purpose of such a poll? This is a mandate for the Ruthenian Catholics. They must make the best of it.

In Christ,
R

Dear Recluse,

Thank you for clarifying. You had said that someone "must know" that "the majority of the BCC" are not pleased with the new book. Now you say that you "think" it is a majority (but admit that it may not be) - hardly something that everyone "must know". And my point is that quite a few of the people who are unhappy would be even MORE unhappy if the bishops pushed for a fuller restoration such as Stephanie described - just as they have been unhappy (and some have left) due to previous changes which brought us closer to Orthodox praxis.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. You seem quite sure of what I am or am not pleased with! To the extent I've engaged in debating here, it's been in response to statements and claims made here that were simply untrue - and since some of the changes that have been made ARE improvements, I'm not willing to constantly display my "more Orthodox than thou" credentials by listing my own opinions. I've stated my disagreements with the new books already, but I am glad to see the bishops attempting to make some restorations (against quite a bit of backlash from the majority of parishes who do NOT celebrate longer liturgies) and am always willing to support such efforts. Such support here has been conspicuously lacking in the past, in favor of "juicier" threads laced with complaint and sarcasm.

I think the only "thing" we need to be doing is to stay true to our faith -- in prayer and practice. The Byzantine Church ended up in trouble when they were not allowed to be Byzantine. It's hurt our church immensely -- because we have two camps now. Those who were raised with Latinizations (which really don't even exist in the Latin church now) and love them; and those who understand our faith and want it restored to its original beauty.

I think the Bishops got into trouble because the RDL is a mandate that doesn't take into account the parishes that were doing more than is currently published. I could live with the music, minus the silly inclusive language, to have the Red Book back. The Red Book parishes were never treated with pastoral sensitivity. We were the model -- and now we're at the bottom of the heap.

Thanks.

Correct. It is only my opinion based on those I have come into contact with.
And this, I suppose is your opinion.
I do not intend to offend you. Please forgive me.
If you are saying that this is what you have gleaned from my posts, I again humbly ask your forgiveness.
Yes. And I commend you for that.

Have a blessed day

R

Dear Recluse,

No offense intended, and none taken!

Stephanie said:


I agree completely - with the addition that the bishops (in my opinion) should have used a more open process, and did not follow through as well as they might have on catechesis.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Unfortunately, I think Stephanie paints a starkly black and white picture. Either you (1) follow the "Red Book" in a very literal way or (2), you're a "latinizer." Life, nor the Byzantine tradition, is not so starkly black and white, as much as we would want it to be. One could argue, and it has been argued, that to put the Liturgy into English is to "latinize," for, after all, English is totally and completely a language of Western Europe, and simply to use the language is to introduce some Western concepts. Comparatively speaking, the Russian and Greek cultures are more "western" than the Syrian and Coptic cultures. Since 1962, our church has systematically eliminated clear latinizations from the Liturgy - though some remain, such as pre-cut Communion particles, though it is not in the new books. The new translation has restored the zeon and eliminated the "filioque." The new translation has also done something which the "red book" did not do - it restored the priest's office - his prayers said for the hearing of the people. This
issue is consistently ignored, and whether you agree with the practice or not - it is a substantive issue, amd it has nothing to do with "minimalization." Nor does it have anything to do with "latinization," as it was proposed in the East seriously long before it was proposed in the West. And, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, we do live in the Western world, and we cannot help but be influenced by Western ideas - but we can accept praying aloud and reject facing the people, and so be faithful to our tradition. Stephanie also argues for the "full Ruthenian recension," which is, of course, only a creature of the Catholic Church. You will not find the "full Ruthenian recension" in Orthodoxy. I bring this up, becuase what I think she is really saying is that we must be completely conformed to Orthodoxy, and the "full Ruthenian recension" is fully conformed to Orthodoxy. This is true - so far! - on the level of written texts, if one ignores Greek and Slav variations, though not always in pastoral practice. But if we are to argue for the "full Ruthenian recension," the reason for this should be made clear, and perhaps it might be better to say the full "Byzantine," or "Orthodox" or "traditional" or the "textus receptus," or some such. I also think Jeff is right when he says there is more objection from the more Latinizing end. Many complain that we are becomnig too "Orthodox." It may not even matter who is "right" and who is "wrong," the mere fact of division may destroy our church. Liturgical change hurts, and so we are tempted to hurt back, rather than seek some kind of common ground. I am optimistic, however, that we will come through this crisis stronger.

Father David,

I visited a Byzantine parish in my area a while back. They USED the "Red Book". It was the identical liturgy word for word, trojca held three times, lock stock and barrel, as my OCA parish uses every Sunday.
They even have a CURTAIN behind the iconostas!

The parishioners there loved it,and are now dealing with the RDL. I've been told that some have left, don't like the new music, etc,etc. They were, in my opinion, a parish to be emulated. People from heavily Latinized parishes would occasionally visit and think they were in an Orthodox church.

Essentially the "Red Book" is what's currently in use in the OCA. It works for us. Why can't it work for the Byzantine Catholic church?

Dear Fr. David,

Thank you for your reply. What I had hoped to express in my earlier post(s) was that this RDL has created two camps -- and by sitting on the fence, no one is pleased with this translation. Maybe the commonality we all have is that we dislike what our Hierarchs have done to our beloved Divine Liturgy. Maybe that's our starting point for putting together a translation that represents who the Byzantine Church truly is -- free from Latinizations; free to experience all of the Orthodox practices we are entitled to as Byzantine Catholics; free to even say the word orthodox in our Divine Liturgy.

What many families in my age group -- those under 50 had hoped for was a translation that gave the parishes that were behind liturgically the opportunity to experience a fuller liturgy; while allowing those parishes celebrating the Red Book to continue to do so. Instead, in the name of "progress" those Red Book parishes lost the most.

Specifically, what many of us hoped for was a liturgy that allowed:

--- Three verses of the antiphons (realizing this is an abridgment of what a full recension would have, but that we were headed in that direction)

--- Restoration of the litanies, specifically those between the verses of the first and second antiphons, and before the third antiphon.

--- A liturgical translation that cleaned-up the inaccurate text to include the word orthodox, and perhaps unto ages of ages

--- A liturgical translation that didn't fall to politically correct agendas

--- The restoration of Vespers on Saturday, not the current "Vespergy"

--- The restoration of Matins & Hours

--- The restoration of antidoron


Apparently, some accommodations were to be made through the issuance of a supplement for those parishes that did follow the Red Book, however our Bishop, has forbidden its use in our Eparchy. While the Bishop had the opportunity to be pastorally sensitive, he chose not to. Now, I've watched at least four families with kids, leave for other jurisdictions and the OCA. Those are exactly the people we hoped to engage with this RDL. Now, who will be responsible for their souls?

You are right in your assessment that this is a different time, in that we are influenced by western ideas -- but how has the OCA managed to grow their church, with what is often referred to as archaic language in their Divine Liturgy? I kid you not, at a local OCA parish the church is full each Sunday for a two hour Divine Liturgy. The church is busting at the seams with younger families.

We are different than our parents and grandparents, because we're educated and we're better equipped to know what is right and what is wrong. At one point in time our grandparents, priests and hierarchs were willing to Latinize us out of existence to fit into the ideal American Catholic Church. Today we know better. And this forum proves that fact. Even Rome wants us to prove that Byzantines can be both Catholic and Orthodox. That's where this RDL falls short.

S'Nami Boh!

Stephanie

?? The prayers were present - and I do not recall any absolute prohibition that they could not be taken aloud (some were taking parts of the "Parma" version aloud previously).

The history of silent and audible anaphora has been rehashed many times here, and no new compelling arguments from the historic corpus of development of the practice have been made. Even attempted civil mandates to enforce the audible anaphora have not prevailed - and that at a much, much earlier time in the Church and before any such false identifier as "latinization" could be made on the practice of the silent anaphora. I am not sure separating the "Priest's Office" as a dissectional component from the entirety of the Liturgy is really a good idea, as if it is somehow a separate entity. The "Priest's Office" becomes a somewhat subjective thing in and of itself - and if we are speaking here of presbyteral prayers neither Taft nor Schmemann suggested in discussions of reform that all of the presbyteral prayers should be taken aloud.

Stephanie,

What your saying is true, but the problem here is the bishops who promulgated the RDL are not much younger than the same people who will just tolerate the new translation. (The 65 plus crowd that is the majority of the metropolia). They need a church to be buried from. Who is really complaining on the parish level? How many of the majority even read this forum? The bishops banked on this, and they won.

If the Archdiocese was as big as a comparable Latin Archdiocese, with many younger families you can bet they wouldn't have tampered with success. IE,(Don't bite the hand that feeds you). I really would like to know why a church as little as the BCC felt the need to destroy what is already a microcosm of the whole Catholic picture in the USA.

Do the hierarchs think that this will help Orthodox-Catholic relations, when this single translation is the furthest away from any other Eastern Catholic or Orthodox translation? Or don't they care?

Your point about a local OCA church bursting at the seams is well taken. I know the parish you are referring to, and there were alot of crying babies the last time I was there. Annoying during the liturgy sure, but guess what, They are the future of the parish!

I spent half of my life in the BCC, and as everybody here knows I recently became Orthodox. I will live out the rest of my life in a church that I am confident will not give in to change for the sake of change, and hopefully will not give in to any current social agenda.

My prayers are with the concerned faithful who remain in the BCC,and my family and friends who are struggling with what to do next.

Christos Posredi Nas!
Etnick

A few thoughts about Dr. John's thoughts.


Regardless of how they "behave" I don't see the Greek parishes, at least in our general geographic area, closing or rapidly shrinking as I do the BCC.


A very similar charge was mounted in the Latin Church in the early 1970s. Now nearly forty years later, there is now much wider and more free use of the "extraordinary rite", or the older "full rescension", at least according to the 1962 Missal. And (absolutely no insult intended) it is precisely families younger than yourself and your generation that are flocking to that traditional rescension in the Latin Church.


While we cannot become obsessive about them, the externals do matter. The curtain certainly has its scriptural significance as well as its use through the received tradition. When accompanied by appropriate catechesis, renewal and restoration are very much possible, including use of the 1944 Ordo and the 1964 Liturgikon. As the Latin Church learned (and as did the Russians via the Old Ritualists), throwing out or forbidding use of the older rescension is not of itself a good thing under the banner of "renewal".

Amen my brother, Amen.

This is an interesting comment. Is the discontent caused by the revision, now recognized by the Hierarchs as a legitimate "crisis"?

Oh how I miss Father Elias and Aliquippa!

I, for one, would be much happier about the present state of things if Vespers and Matins were mandated by the bishops, or at least celebrated in the cathedrals.

As long as we are making painful changes, let's do that too.

Why?

Why what? Why make painful change Or why recover the whole liturgical cycle of Vespers-Matins-Liturgy?

For one thing, the changeable parts for feasts are mostly found in Vespers, as well as the Old Testament readings.

The cathedral of my Eparchy, St. Nicholas Cathedral, celebrates both Ukrainian and English Great Vespers on Saturday evenings in Chicago. Two blocks away at Sts. Volodymyr and Olha Vespers is celebrated (Julian Calendar) in Ukrainian as well.

And regarding the issue of "why" asked by Simple Sinner, much of the lex orandi for the Resurrection and other moments of our salvation history are contained in the rich texts of Vespers and Matins. That should be a primary aspect of restoration, not secondary.

In my last post, I wrote concerning the public recitation of the anaphora: �This issue is consistently ignored, and whether you agree with the practice or not - it is a substantive issue.�
In the responses to my post, only Deacon Randall responded to this, otherwise it was systematically ignored. Will the restoration of the reading of the anaphora aloud save the Church/Liturgy? Perhaps not - but it is the expression of the central mystery of our faith - the Paschal mystery. It is what Christianity is all about. At the very least, it would open this treasure to the people. If someone were to ask me, �Do you think that the celebration of the full traditional Liturgy is not a good thing?� I would respond, �Do you say (read, proclaim, sing, chant) the anaphora aloud?� If not, you have accomplished nothing.
Stephanie says, �Maybe the commonality we all have is that we dislike what our Hierarchs have done to our beloved Divine Liturgy.� However, this cannot serve as the common ground, because it is precisely the point on which we disagree.
Diak says that we cannot separate the priest�s office from the whole Liturgy - of course not! The Liturgy is an incorporation of various roles creating one worshiping community. The office of the priest is �for� the community. This does not mean there is not a �priest�s role,� otherwise anyone could celebrate the Liturgy, and this role - prayer in the name of the community - definitely needs renewal. It is also true that not all the presbyteral prayers were said aloud, and I enumerated which were the private prayers of the priest in my post # 246789 on July 27.

Dear Father David,

Let's open the treasure even more. Rip out the iconostas and turn the altars around, that will 'open up this treasure to the people' even more! Same argument, same idea, and it is wrong.

I never felt excluded from the Liturgy because of the icons, or the singing, or the priest facing the altar, or the silent prayers.

I DO feel excluded by this revision, by the inclusive language fiasco, the ugly words and impossible music. I used to participate, now I can't. I am excluded now. Nothing has been 'opened up' for me by this fiasco.

My money has been spent (more than a million dollars?) on this disaster, my heart has been broken, and faith disturbed.

It would be nice if the bishops who did this apologized for the harm they have done to our Church by this terrible decision, things might begin to heal.

In the mean time, my money is going elsewhere, and I am patiently waiting for my Church to come to its senses.

Nick

A priest who celebrates the Divine Liturgy and does not pray the Anaphora aloud has not �accomplished nothing�. He has accomplished the Eucharist. That is everything.

Jeff,

Let's be honest. You know and I know what our Traditions are and aren't. Why do you want people to be happy with only part of our Traditions being restored and yet ignore the new innovations and inclusive language that has now become official practice with the RDL?

The hierarchs could clear this up easily and we both know this. Instead of revising, restoring and evangelizing should be what took place.

By the way, I'm still trying to figure out why the Cathedral in Munhall has time for Saturday evening liturgy when instead it should be doing Vespers. The Cathedral in Munhall has a more than qualified cantor who can chant Vespers. What do you consider our Tradition Jeff, Vespers or Saturday evening liturgies?

The bottom line is that no surveys are needed, we have great writers and theologians who have handed down the proper Traditions, why don't we all listen to them?


Dr. John,

perhaps you can share with the board how one goes about doing a proper prostration with pews in front and in back of you. The Great Canon of St. Andrew has many, many, many, prostrations, I would love to hear how one would go about performing these?



Father David,

I understand your negative animus towards questions not being answered.

Could you please share why the Cathedral in Munhall has time for Saturday evening liturgies yet does not celebrate Vespers even when they have a more than qualified cantor who is able to chant Vespers?

Also, how many times did any of our Cathedrals celebrate the Great Canon of St. Andrew in the last 100 years?

Monomakh

The question is will the RDL stop the loss of membership in the Ruthenian Metropolia? Has any Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church gained membership since the the introduction of the RDL?
Will the Ruthenian Metropolia survive? Is the Ruthenian Metropolia destined to only be a dying anomaly dependent upon Bi-ritual Latin Priests and their Roman bishops to survive?

Food for thought...

Ungcsertezs

So the efficacy of the Sacrifice is premised solely on an aloud Anaphora in its entirety? This insinuation is most disturbing, especially the personal interpretation of "having accomplished nothing", and is certainly not supported by Church doctrine (Catholic or Orthodox).

I think we've seen the evidence here. This unfortunate and bad revision of the Liturgy, and the bad books which the bishops have dumped on us, is founded on BAD theology.

Good theology and good liturgy go together. Unfortunately, they are not to be found in the mandated Revisions of the Liturgy.

Let's lose these books now, and replace them with something better.

Nick

My thoughts exactly Fr Deacon!

I have been very pleased and haven't thought twice of my decision to move from the BCA to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. If I was still in the BCA the above quote would make my jaw drop even more. Father Deacon Randall is 100% correct in questioning the veracity of the above statement in regards to church doctrine.

Monomakh

I do not believe Fr. David is stating that the Liturgy is not effacious without the Anaphora aloud. I believe he is stating that the full traditional Liturgy includes the Anaphora aloud. One can take all the Litanies but this is not what makes a full traditional Liturgy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr David,

Are you then trying to tell all that because the anaphora is NOT prayed out loud then the Holy Spirit has not been able to work in the transformation of the Eucharist? If not, please clarify because what you are stating sure sounds like it, thus calling into to question the validity of the Eucharist for centuries.

I am asking that Fr David respond to this since what I have quoted is his exact words.

(sigh) The meaning of my statement is:
IF: you restore the full traditional Liturgy,
THEN: this is meaningless unless you also:
restore the public recitation of the anaphora.
I myself would make the restoration of the full traditional Liturgy contingent on the restoration of the public anaphora.
I stick by that, and it was designed to get attention, which it suceeded quite well in doing!!!
Sorry then that some then took this general statement about liturgical change and applied it individually to each and every Liturgy. I never used the word "efficacy," which was put into my mouth. Obviously, a Liturgy even with the anaphora recited sotto voce is valid, but then so is a recited Liturgy celebrated in a private chapel with one server - but hardly the ideal!

Father David,

You reply is utter nonsense. You have been asked a direct question regarding a direct quote from your own post, not the interpretations of it. If you can not properly defend your own words, then let the record stand. I along with many others here have heard better responses from a used car salesman in trying to unload their prize lemon. You disappoint many here that may have held your work in high regard previously.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Sorry, but word games. Since when is a full Liturgical Tradition dependent on a spoken anaphora? Has the Holy Apostolic Church been deprived of a Full Liturgical Tradition for hundreds of years due to a silent Anaphora?

Frankly Fr Petras, I am disappointed, to say the least. You make a statement that verges on heresy, than say you were just trying to raise some hackles. Well, you succeeded. The word games are becoming wearisome. You speak of the need for an audible Anaphora as the hallmark of a full Liturgical Tradition, when you have 45 minute Masses, (yes, masses, not liturgies) and lack even basic Matins and Vespers services. Be glad that most of the old Baba's have gone to their heavenly reward, otherwise, you would really be hearing it. I leave you with the words of a holy hierarch who knew how to speak plainly. You might want to weigh what he has to say.

�The poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached only from outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians.�
+Metropolitan Philaret

Alexandr

You know what? What Father David says is perfectly OK! When the BCC is left with only Bishops and clergy and no laity, they will have achieved their ultimate goal. What I want to know is how I'm SUFFERING through a SILENT anaphora with a FULL liturgy?!

This is starting to border on the ridiculous. Haven't the Bishops and their minions had enough? Why do they want to kill what's left of their church?

I'm not sure I even understand the point that was trying to be made. What exactly does that mean, the statement that a full liturgy is not "full" unless the anaphora is aloud?

While I hesitate to respond to a second-hand defense (which, like Fr. Anthony, I do not believe answers the concerns about the previous statement), I will anyway. This is also very disagreeable, as the Church traditionally has not premised the idea of a "full" Liturgy on the Anaphora being taken aloud - again taking failed (even civil) attempts at its mandated use as an example in the first millenium. I don't recall any Fathers after the failure of the mandate questioning the "fullness" of the Liturgy with a quiet Anaphora.

I thank Father David for clarifying his remarks. I highly suggest that he take greater care in composing his posts. Judging by the complaints I have received many have been scandalized by what he has written. When writing for an internet forum one should never expect people to have to look beyond the written word for the intent of the message.

I believe Fr. David has answered the question directly and given the same answer I did in his defense. To pull his quote out of the context of what is being discussed and claim he is stating that the silent Anpahora doesn't produce the Eucharist is what is utter nonsense.

If people are allowed to hold the position that if the little litanies aren't taken then a full traditional Litugry isn't served, Fr. David can certainly hold the position that if the Anaphora isn't taken aloud then a full traditional Liturgy isn't served.

This thread more than any proves to me discussing this subject is fruitless. Those who don't like the RDL aren't ever going to like it, those who don't see problems with it are never going to see any. I, for one, am done discussing it. I ask Fr. David 's forgiveness for, what I believe, is poor treatment on this forum.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Deacon,

First of all the only treatment is that which is given in frustration by myself and many of the readers to this section. I hold neither a for or against as far as the RDL is concerned. What I resent is the the word games that are played by the likes of Fr David and other posters of the pro-side that side step constantly the questions posed or round the issue with non-answers. That includes yourself at times.

Many on this section are frustrated by this TACTIC which only makes one think that something evil may be trying to be imposed on the faithful. We are not ignorant and all have at least not only a rudimentary knowledge of the faith but some may be well-read or even theologically educated. It is time to stop this "talking down" to the faithful. Then maybe the respect that should be due Fr David and some others can be afforded.

I am open to honest and direct response, not nonsense and double talk. I am sure that many others would agree, and maybe then a good deal of what is constantly being asked here would not be necessary.

So in a manner of speaking I have to say your comment above is unwarranted until straight and forthright answers start coming about.

I was quite serious when I said I am done. Unless it is to correct an untruth, I am done with this matter. It is robbing me of my peace.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree, not being able to direct and forthright in giving replies can keep one up at night.

Fr Deacon Lance,

C'mon! This part of your statement sounds like something a third grader would say! Father David still hasn't given ONE reason why he thinks the FULL Ruthenian recension cannot work for the BCC.

There must be a reason. Our people have the attention span of a housefly, they won't understand it, we just don't want them to have it, It's no good for them.... He must have a valid reason.?

No, what makes it incomplete are the missing parts of our beloved Divine Liturgy -- not just the Litanies. (Though, when you take the people's prayers away, how does that add to the fullness of the Divine Liturgy?) And, adding the Anaphora aloud doesn't make up for all the other missing pieces and parts, poor translations, and silly inclusive language. That's what Fr. David would have us believe -- but the Liturgy is still missing crucial prayers & practices, like:

--- Three verses of the antiphons (realizing this is an abridgment of what a full recension would have, but that we were headed in that direction)

--- Restoration of the litanies, specifically those between the verses of the first and second antiphons, and before the third antiphon.

--- A liturgical translation that cleaned-up the inaccurate text to include the word orthodox, and perhaps unto ages of ages

--- A liturgical translation that didn't fall to politically correct agendas

--- The restoration of Vespers on Saturday, not the current "Vespergy"

--- The restoration of Matins & Hours

--- The restoration of antidoron


Just ask Fr. Serge, he wrote an entire book on the deficiencies of this Liturgy.

How about this - include all of the other elements and pray the anaphora aloud, this way nothing is missing to anyone. If all it takes is an aloud anaphora to restore what is now not practiced in your Church, I don't see that there is anything to lose.

First of all, if simply asking a clarification of one's written statement is "putting words into my mouth" (the exact phrase used by the writer) then one questions if any dialogue can occur objectively and academically with that person. It appears not, sadly, since this Forum is the only place I know of that these kinds of discussions are even undertaken or tolerated regarding the RDL, "rough around the edges" as they may be.

Having spent nearly all of my professional life in natural science (geology and geophysics), these are very light discussions compared to many I have seen regarding scrutiny of one's work, data, and interpretations.

Secondly, and as I responded previously, this second-hand defense is simply wrong with regard to liturgical history. Has any Father ever questioned the "fullness" of the Liturgy with a quiet Anaphora?

Even assuming the previous concerns regarding questions of "efficacy" and clarifications of statements are allayed, this in and of itself is a disturbing question. A civil mandate to celebrate the Anaphora aloud failed miserably, and certainly the Church has never publically questioned any sense of fullness of her Liturgy with a quiet Anaphora. This statement itself is at odds with the developed orthopraxis of the Church.

I say this (which I have said repeatedly) as one not opposed to the audible Anaphora, and who also loves the quiet Anaphora. Both are truly and objectively the celebration of the Anaphora, and each has its own pastoral and catechetical beauty, obviously.

Neither do I believe it necessary to mandate an aloud Anaphora, which failed miserably in the past in a much more Christian culture.

It is simply not necessary to abolish a quiet Anaphora, and I reject blanket statements such as those made above not based on the Church Fathers or the developed liturgical history. Mandates and suppression are hardly the way to positively foster anything, as even a neophyte to history will tell you.

I also believe mandates such as this which are based on personal interpretation, which are not open to formal and objective critique from peers, which do not reflect or respect the corpus of liturgical development and history, nor in the end respect the pastoral economia of the celebrating priest, who may very well have the best interest of his parish in mind, are misguided at best.

I am very pleased that other Churches sui iuris in recent history have taken a very different approach in disseminating proposed texts and methodologies for their respective translations, and in return obtained at least a sampling of the sensus fidelium and a review from the priests who will be tasked to celebrate that Liturgy before their mandated use.

Interesting point, Michael - perhaps a counter proposal to the Hierarchs might be the full 1964 Liturgikon with an aloud Anaphora? I do not believe this will fly, either, unfortunately, with the IELC. That would have been too easy - fix some typos in the original Liturgikon and change a couple of rubrics. No, this was the culmination of a long- standing effort to revise the DL.