www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I guess they are right again

Well, after all the belly aching and moaning, I guess I am ready to say this whole "Revised Divine Liturgy" section has lost it's luster. The change has occurred, it's been accepted and I don�t see it being re-canted. If someone left our Faith after a few new words, then their Belief must not be very strong anyway.
They said to, "Wait it out. You'll forget about the old way soon enough" and they are right. Again.

God Bless our Eparchies.

If someone left our Faith after a few new words, then their Belief must not be very strong anyway.

human beings are REMARKABLY adaptable

Well, after all the belly aching and moaning, I guess I am ready to say this whole "Revised Divine Liturgy" section has lost it's luster. The change has occurred, it's been accepted and I don�t see it being re-canted. If someone left our Faith after a few new words, then their Belief must not be very strong anyway.

They said to, "Wait it out. You'll forget about the old way soon enough" and they are right. Again.

God Bless our Eparchies.

With all of the other ridiculous changes, why weren't the words to the Our Father changed?

But ... (I can hear the administrators already) ... that is a discussion for another thread.

How insulting! I did not "leave" your faith.

Our family has left the Ruthenians and now go to the Russian Catholic Church on Sundays and the Melkite during the week. We would never leave the Chair of Peter.

The clergy and bishops who have pushed this on the church are tyrants if you dare to question it. Our now former priest said to my complaints that I wasn't a theologian.When I brought up the inclusive language he said "well didn't Christ die for everyone" I had to challege him on such a absurd comment.

Lots of people I know are really upset about it and have left or waiting to see if Rome will revoke it.It is so painful to see this happen. Now I know how those Latins felt in the late sixties!

What is interesting about this on a local level (in our parish in SugarCreek, MO) is that few people were upset by the issues discussed in this Forum. The complaints I heard had to do with the elimination of Slavonic texts from the printed services and the new music.

But human beings are REMARKABLY adaptable and under the patient, wise leadership of Fr Stephen (Muth), the changes have been implemented well and the parish is back to singing loudly and participating with fervor in the services.

What baffles me is the unfriendly attitude of the Ruthenian bishops in handling the faithful's response to the RDL. Its pretty unfortunate that it will take some time for the bishops to realise on their own that liturgy is NOT a fashionable thing.

As one who knows and loves the monastery in Newberry Springs I can tell you under no circumstances would the monks take on the new liturgy. The monks there are wonderful! None of the other Eastern Catholic churches are either.

The only reason I bring this up is because of all the hoopla on the forum about how the Slavonic Hymns would be banned. And yet I have been to several Divine Liturgies with some Slavonic hymns, liturgical and non-liturgical, and not once did the Archbishop seem offended.

Just what was fomerly the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church,which now calls itself the Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Catholic Church of America.

Ungcsertezs

The Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh was established as the Exarchate of Pittsburgh in 1924. This Exarchate expanded to become the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the Eparchy of Passaic in 1963.

Full status as a Metropolitan Church was granted in 1969 with the designation of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, the Eparchy of Passaic, the Eparchy of Parma and, later, the Eparchy of Van Nuys.

Did Christ not say, "Behold, I make all things new?"

If you have changed to Orthodox, then perhaps you should find an Orthodox Message board instead of lingering on this Catholic one.

He also said, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." He also said to his Apostles and to their successors, our Bishops, "I give you the Holy Spirit."

I think there is a duty incumbent upon all Orthodox Catholics to trust the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been given to Bishops and to submit to their legitimate authority, especially when the exercise of that authority has received approval from their legitimate, God-ordained, Spirit-filled Apostolic overseers.

For an individual or group of individuals to decide that they know better than the Bishops is the essence of Protestant thought.

For an individual or group of individuals to decide that they know better than the Bishops is the essence of Protestant thought.

During the Divine Liturgy we pray for everyone. Your question undoubtedly is prompted because of some people�s understanding or perception of the term "Orthodox". The English term is derived from the Greek Orthododokeo which means to teach rightly. In a passive sense, it is applied to those who had been "rightly taught", hence "true believing". It seems to me that when this Greek term was translated into Church-Slavonic (or ancient Bulgarian), the translator misinterpreted the second half of the verb Dokeo (to teach-Doksia participle) and confused it with the Greek word (to glorify) -- Doksia (glory), so that many have come to understand the word "Orthodox" as meaning "true -- worshipers" or those "rightly glorifying God". Hence, the word: Pravoslavnyj.
Curious, are you confused by now? Who wouldn't be! Be as it may, the word "Orthodox" has been used throughout the history of the church to describe the Faith of the Church. It appears in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the Liturgies of both the Eastern and Western Churches. In the old Latin text of the Roman Catholic Mass, the people prayed "pro orthoxis fidelibus" i.e. for "Orthodox Christians", meaning the faithful who professed the accurate teachings of the Faith. However, since the word "Orthodox" originated in the Eastern Church(es), it was and has been widely used. For us to deny that our Faith is Orthodox, would be negating or re-writing the history of the Church and the terminology which the Church has used and uses.

In modern day Ukraine, many people, not wanting to be confused with the Orthodox Church, especially the Russian Church, argue against the use of the word "Orthodox". The late Patriarch Joseph Slipyi firmly stood on the ground that we must not abandon the use of this word at all costs, because it leads to a correct understanding of our very identity. We can understand that with the gradual estrangement of Eastern Christians from Western Christians, that some misunderstanding can easily arise especially since the term "Orthodox" has shifted in popular parlance from describing The Faith to describing the Church. Nonetheless, we strive to overcome misunderstandings and continue to use the word Orthodox properly, especially in our own day and age to overcome the difficulties of the past and pray for the unity of all the true -- believers in the One Church of Jesus Christ. The communion, in the love of Christ, of all "Orthodox churches" in the Universal Church is the one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church of Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has underscored many times that we are "Orthodox in Faith, and Catholic in the bonds of love."

Yours In Christ,

+Bishop Robert

Great Fast 2004

Matthew,

May I suggest that you read the User Agreement. Diak is correct, this is not an exclusive Catholic board, but rather a discussion board between Christians of different traditions.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

He also said, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." He also said to his Apostles and to their successors, our Bishops, "I give you the Holy Spirit."

I think there is a duty incumbent upon all Orthodox Catholics to trust the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been given to Bishops and to submit to their legitimate authority, especially when the exercise of that authority has received approval from their legitimate, God-ordained, Spirit-filled Apostolic overseers.

For an individual or group of individuals to decide that they know better than the Bishops is the essence of Protestant thought.

I just wanted however to note that your statement about "major" problems being "very clear" that I would disagree.

As I have written frequently, I "LOVE" the New Liturgy and, at least on a local level, have found it to be encouraging of spiritual life and vitality among the lay people. Far from imploding, I think it is the beginnings of an explosion of spiritual and numerical growth for the Church.

I should also note that my "sources" indicate that there is very little chance that the RDL will ever be rescinded. Liberty to use an older form MAY be extended to those who wish it, but it is "very clear" that the RDL is here to stay. For that, I thank God!

Liberty to use an older form MAY be extended to those who wish it

Liberty to use an older form MAY be extended to those who wish it....

I think there is a duty incumbent upon all Orthodox Catholics to trust the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been given to Bishops and to submit to their legitimate authority, especially when the exercise of that authority has received approval from their legitimate, God-ordained, Spirit-filled Apostolic overseers

It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile....

I should like just briefly to comment on two more perceptions which appear in Dom Alcuin Reid's book. Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism --which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism - are both equally wrong....

These two might be described as unholy twins. The first generation of liturgists were for the most part historians. Thus they were inclined to archaeological enthusiasm: They were trying to unearth the oldest form in its original purity; they regarded the liturgical books in current use, with the rites they offered, as the expression of the rampant proliferation through history of secondary growths which were the product of misunderstandings and of ignorance of the past...

The judgements made about these questions by intellectual professors were often influenced by their rationalist presuppositions, and not infrequently missed the point of what really supports the life of the faithful...

As I have written frequently, I "LOVE" the New Liturgy ...

What in particular, especially vis-�-vis the "Old"(= English [patronagechurch.com] or Slavonic [patronagechurch.com] )?


Dn. Anthony

I think if there's anything recent RC history teaches us, it's that arbitrary liturgical reforms imposed from above make for empty churches.

John Murray

I also deeply appreciate the adoption of elements of horizontal inclusive language and find it both theologically correct and pastorally sensitive. From my personal dialogue with literally hundreds of young people, I can honestly say that this Liturgy communicates the Gospel effectively to today's youth in a way that the older form of the Liturgy does not.

This Church is literally so packed so that there are no seats available. So at least here in town, your thesis is not borne out in practice.

While this is true, I would note that nowhere and at no time did the Cardinal (now Pope) recommend or encourage priests and/or laypeople to rebel against or in any way disobey the legitimate authority of the Church as exercised through her bishops. In fact, those who insisted on using the older liturgical forms often found themselves in schism against the Church.

If there is anything Church history teaches us, it is this. Those who insist on absolute purity often end up in schism. It began with the Monatists, continued with the Old Believers, continued in the Reformation, etc.

I also deeply appreciate the adoption of elements of horizontal inclusive language and find it both theologically correct and pastorally sensitive. From my personal dialogue with literally hundreds of young people, I can honestly say that this Liturgy communicates the Gospel effectively to today's youth in a way that the older form of the Liturgy does not.

Monomakh

Please come visit St. Michael's in Canonsburg we have dozens of children. I think our ECF program is somewhere around 70 kids.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Well, after all the belly aching and moaning, I guess I am ready to say this whole "Revised Divine Liturgy" section has lost it's luster. The change has occurred, it's been accepted and I don�t see it being re-canted. If someone left our Faith after a few new words, then their Belief must not be very strong anyway.

They said to, "Wait it out. You'll forget about the old way soon enough" and they are right. Again.

God Bless our Eparchies.

I also deeply appreciate the adoption of elements of horizontal inclusive language and find it both theologically correct and pastorally sensitive. From my personal dialogue with literally hundreds of young people, I can honestly say that this Liturgy communicates the Gospel effectively to today's youth in a way that the older form of the Liturgy does not.

Liturgiam Authenticam
30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

31. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:

a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.

b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression "Son of Man" be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.

c) The term "fathers", found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.

d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.

e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as "brother", "sister", etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.

f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.

g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29.

32. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered "classics" in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage.

That is certainly not something that the statistics of religious practice indicate. The Catholic Church in the USA has been growing and continues to grow -- primarily because of the recent immigration of Hispanics. As far as I know, the large and overflowing Hispanic Churches use the new forms and do not have any controversy about them.

On a local level, the largest and most active Latin Church in town (which is filled for every service to overflowing on Saturday/Sunday and is often filled with people during the week) has enthusiastically embraced the "new forms" -- including guitar masses, rock-n-roll liturgies, etc. I personally do not find this to be a meaningful worship experience, but thousands in my town do. This Church is literally so packed so that there are no seats available. So at least here in town, your thesis is not borne out in practice.

While this is true, I would note that nowhere and at no time did the Cardinal (now Pope) recommend or encourage priests and/or laypeople to rebel against or in any way disobey the legitimate authority of the Church as exercised through her bishops. In fact, those who insisted on using the older liturgical forms often found themselves in schism against the Church.

If indeed the Faith of Christ were vague, indeterminate, a matter of opinion or deduction, then, indeed, we may well conceive that the Ministers of the Gospel would be the only due expounders and guardians of it; then it might be fitting for private Christians to wait till they were informed concerning the best mode of expressing it, or the relative importance of this or that part of it. But this has been all settled long ago; the Gospel Faith is a definite deposit,�a treasure, common to all, one and the same in every age, conceived in set words, and such as admits of being received, preserved, transmitted. We may safely leave the custody of it even in the hands of individuals; for in so doing, we are leaving nothing at all to private rashness and fancy, to pride, debate, and strife. We are but allowing men to "contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints;" the Faith which was put into their hands one by one at their baptism, in a form of words called the Creed, and which has come down to them in that very same form from the first ages. This Faith is what even the humblest member of the Church may and must contend for; and in proportion to his education, will the circle of his knowledge enlarge. The Creed delivered to him in Baptism will then unfold, first, into the Nicene Creed (as it is called), then into the Athanasian; and, according as his power of grasping the sense of its articles increases, so will it become his duty to contend for them in their fuller and more accurate form. All these unfoldings of the Gospel Doctrine will become to him precious as the original articles, because they are in fact nothing more or less than the {257} one true explanation of them delivered down to us from the first ages, together with the original baptismal or Apostles' Creed itself. As all nations confess to the existence of a God, so all branches of the Church confess to the Gospel doctrine; as the tradition of men witnesses to a Moral Governor and Judge, so the tradition of Saints witnesses to the Father Almighty, and His only Son, and the Holy Ghost. And as neither the superstitions of polytheism, nor the atheistic extravagances of particular countries at particular times, practically interfere with our reception of the one message which the sons of Adam deliver; so, much less, do the local heresies and temporary errors of the early Church, and its superadded corruptions, its schismatic offshoots, or its partial defections in later ages, impair the evidence and the claim of its teaching, in the judgment of those who sincerely wish to know the Truth once delivered to it. Blessed be God! we have not to find the Truth, it is put into our hands; we have but to commit it to our hearts, to preserve it inviolate, and to deliver it over to our posterity.

Also, has Vespers and Matins at St. Luke's been discontinued in the past year? I thought that they used to be celebrated there? Earlier in the thread you mentioned 'services', did you only mean the Divine Liturgy or Vespers and Matins as well?

St. Elias in Toronto (UGCC), St. Anne's in Harrisburgh (BCA), and Pokrova in Parma (UGCC) are the only places where I've seen some kind of future in young people attending church. None of these three embrace the secular changes that are taking place in the BCA, I'll be awaiting to hear the facts about this new and exciting trend that you've uncovered!

The most recent St. Luke's bulletin indicates that Vespers is suppressed until further notice. When I was assisting in that parish over a year ago, we had Vespers, Matins and the full Ruthenian Rescension Divine Liturgy (1964 Liturgikon).

I would also add Gender neutral language and horizaontal inclusive language are not the same thing.

From my personal dialogue with literally hundreds of young people, I can honestly say that this Liturgy communicates the Gospel effectively to today's youth in a way that the older form of the Liturgy does not.

On a local level, the largest and most active Latin Church in town (which is filled for every service to overflowing on Saturday/Sunday and is often filled with people during the week) has enthusiastically embraced the "new forms" -- including guitar masses, rock-n-roll liturgies, etc. I personally do not find this to be a meaningful worship experience,

A prophetic insight such as this is bound to get a good flaming. I stand with you on this!

"Lover of mankind" had real problems as well.

At the same time, when he is not able to serve in Lawrence, Deacon Nicholas routinely serves Vespers at St Luke's on Saturday afternoons.

(i.e. mankind does not refer to both the individual and collective