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

Father Deacon Lance is evidently determined that those of us who have the temerity to criticize the Pittsburgh Metropolia's revision should not be permitted to like the Eparchy of Newton's restoration. Well, for the sake of Christ, forgive me.

I haven't time now to respond to Father Deacon's entire list, but I shall attempt to respond to one criticism he makes:



At the Great Entrance, the Eparchy of Newton edition gives an accurate translation of the Greek text (cf. The Divine Liturgies ... edited with the Greek text by J.N.W.B. Robertson, London, David Nutt, 1894, reprinted Fairfax, Eastern Christian Publications, 2007, pp. 280-281) and the pre-Nikonian Church-Slavonic text (cf. Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom [Church-Slavonic], published with the blessing of Metropolitan Alympy of Moscow and All Rus', Vereshchagino 2002, p. 72 (recto and verso). Those who do not read Church-Slavonic may find the same thing in the "Divine Liturgy" section of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book, Church of the Nativity, Erie, Pennsylvania.

As for the childish criticism that people will not have to hear the dreaded word Orthodox, it occurs in several places in the Divine Liturgy and one does assume that most adults who attend the Divine Liturgy are literate and can see what is on the page in front of them. One also assumes that this word is used by most Melkite clergy in various liturgical contexts.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

You certainly have permission to like it, I do. I just fail to see how one can the Revised Ruthenian unworthy and find the Revised Melkite praiseworthy, when the two share so much in common. I also think critique of translation should be seperated from critique of rubrics because these are two seperate issues.

As to the Great Entrance I am aware that most translations use "May the Lord God remember us all in His kingdom..." But I recall one of the bigger criticisms (not neccesarily yours) was the lack of "Orthodox Christians" at this point. Since it doesn't appear most translations the Metroploia's use, both 65 and 07 book, of "Christians of the true faith" shouldn't be that big of a deal.

As for childish criticism, you must be missing my facetiousness as these are not my criticisms (I have none for the Revised Melkite Liturgy) but what I envisage the criticisms of those who complained about the RDL are or will be.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Serge,

Allow me to list the rubrical problems the Revised Melkite Liturgy shares with the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy based on your enumeration in your book, blank means no problem according to your evaluation:

1) No rubrics for opening of closing the royal doors.

2) The rubric for making the Sign of the Cross with the Gospel Book appears.

3) The rubric telling the deacon where to stand appears.

4) I think the assumption can be made that the Little Entrance is made during the Monogenes when only one Antiphon is taken.

5)

6) Incensation is reduced it would seem.

7)

8)

9)

10) The Diskos is not placed on the deacon's head but he holds it at the level of his forehead with both hands.

11) The Aitesis is suppressed.

12) The heading "The Creed" appears but not until immediately before the deacon's "In wisdom let us be attentive."

13) "The doors. The doors." are suppressed unless catechumens are present.

14)

15) Two petitions are optional.

16)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21) Precut particles are permitted for Communing the faithful rather than using particles taken from the NI KA portions.

22) Again the Diskos is not placed on the deacon's head.

23) There is no mention of alternate Ambon prayers but there are alternate Antiphon Prayers, Entrance Prayers, Trisagion Prayers, Second Prayers of the Faithful, and Prayers of Thanksgiving.

24)

25)

26)


So my count is 13 of 26, 50% of rubrical problems are shared by the Revised Ruthenian and Revised Melkite Liturgies. I will list the shared textual inaccuracies later.

Fr. Deacon Lance

21) Precut particles are permitted for Communing the faithful rather than using particles taken from the NI KA portions

A complete abomination whether Melkite or Ruthenian.

Deviation from traditional rubrics yes. Abomination? Considering that whether from the NI KA portions or from precut particles it is still the Life-givivng Most Holy and Precious Body of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ abomination is a bit much.

I would agree with you there. I'm all for the most traditional form of celebration and maintaining the integrity and significance of certain liturgical actions, but it stretches good sense to call THAT an abomination.

Gordo

I agree with Gordon as well. But looking at the major points that have been raised over the RDL by most - inclusive language, "adjusting" the language of the Creed, allowing the priest to take fuller Antiphons according to the text in the Liturgicon the Melkite approach is quite different, as well as a general allowance for presbyteral economia that is not present in the "sole text" of the RDL. And if additional parts can be taken when Catechumens are present, there is no specific prohibition that these cannot be taken at other times.

Mandating an aloud Anaphora will be as difficult now as it was in the time of Justinian, and possibly as successful as well...

I assist at the altar every Sunday morning. I've watched the entire proskimidia many times. It is in itself a very prayerful and solemn service. I had never seen a full one done until I joined the OCA.

Can someone on here tell me why this most crucial part of the Divine Liturgy would be shortened and why pre cut particles are used?

Short of someone to bake the prosphora, what possible reason is there to not do a proper proskimidia? Surely it's taught in the seminary.

It cuts about 10-15 minutes from the length of liturgy which keeps most Byzantine Catholic liturgies under on hour.

U-C

But it's done privately before the DL in most places I've seen--never as PART OF the liturgy. At my parish the priest starts it about 8:45 and the DL starts at 9:00. Don't most places do it this way? Pre-cut or not, it's always done, albeit, just in a different way.

Traditionally, before the RDL, when Proskomedia began, the cantor would start singing para-liturgical hymns. Since the RDL, it is done in silence.

Ungcsertezs

As I said, right now I am working under a serious time pressure for other commitments involving research and writing. I am in no position to discuss that number of points at the drop of a hat.

Again, I would suggest placing the two texts side-by-side for a comparison, That might indicate how it is possible to consider one decidedly better than the other.

Meanwhile, anyone who wants me to write a thorough review of the Eparchy of Newton's new text will have to be patient with me. But I will go so far as to say that the very fact that the Eparchy of Newton is circulating this text for commentary and criticism speaks volumes and is entirely to the credit of the Eparchy of Newton.

Incidentally, I would disagree that rubrics and translation are so unrelated (except in the case of the rubrics being done by group a and the prayer-texts by group b - which has happened in at least one translation which is been in use for four decades). When the same mind-set is reflected in both, that becomes quite interesting.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

I understand you are busy and don't expect you to be able to respond right now.

Below are the textual inaccuracies the Revised Melkite Liturgy shares with the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy based on your enumeration in your book, blank means no problem according to your evaluation:


1)

2) country place rather than village

3)

4)

5) to minister with us rather serving together with us

6) Holy Mighty One rather than Holy Strong One

7)

8) incline your compassion towards us rather than send down your compassions upon us

9) a place of happiness, a place of peace is used rather than a place of verdure, a place of refreshment

10) the faults of the people is used rather than the ignorances of the people

11)

12) The Holy Spirit shall come upon you rather than May the Holy Spirit come upon you (the Ruthenian 07 book uses this)

13) For the precious gifts here offered rather than here set forth

14) Spiritual rather than rational sacrifice

15) upon these gifts here offered rather here set forth

16) rightly proclaiming rather than rightly dividing or teaching

17)

18)

19)

20) trespassess is retained rather than debts

21) same paragraph, although expanded, appears.

22)

23)

So my count is 13 of 22, over 50%, textual inaccuracies are shared by the Revised Ruthenian and Revised Melkite Liturgies, one of which, #12, the Ruthenian 07 book corrected.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In most parishes the Proskomede is started 10-15 minutes before the Liturgy proper. However, it is still part of the Liturgy and nothing is preventing the faithful for coming to Church for it. It was simply not seen as of utmost importance for the faithful to be there for it. They have no part in it which is why in most places they are occupied with either para-liturgical hymns or the third and sixth hours.

In my experience para-liturgical hymns are started either when the priest comes out for the Proskomede or when he begins the great incensation depending on what the cantor feels like that day. In my own parish some are there for the Proskomede, others don't come until right before the great incensation which starts on the hour.

As to pre-cut particles, yes they are used to save time but not at the Proskomede, the length of that being determined by the number of commemorations the priest makes. (There is a story of one priest, now a saint, sorry can't remember the name, who took 1-2 hours for Proskomede because of all the commemorations he made.)

The NI KA portions are subdivided for Communion after "One is holy, one is Lord..." during the communion antiphon. My own belief has always been that this was more about an aversion to cutting the consecrated Body of Christ, much like the no chewing the Host policy Latin nuns taught Catholic school kids.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In his excellent and well-taken comments on the Prothesis (which I would rather call the Preparation, but on the issue of terminology I bow to Father Robert Taft's preference) Father Deacon Lance is quite correct.

The Saint in question is Saint John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco. A magnificent video-recording of his canonization is available, and I recommend it highly.

Fr. Serge