www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy One Year and One Day - A Reflection

It has been one year and a day since the RDL (which I prefer to think of as the �Restored Divine Liturgy�) has been the official text in the Metropolia. It has, of course, been under the gun for a much longer time on the Byzantine Forum. These are my reflections.

The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has not collapsed. Some observers on the Forum have reported mass defections, but have not presented any solid evidence. I suspect there have been exaggerations. There has been a lot of resentment among the people, but whenever there is liturgical change, there is resentment. Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full. I went to a Roman liturgy recently and the congregation was probably about half the size of our eparchy . Likewise, most resentment has been that we have become too �Orthodox,� that we should just keep our old Greek Catholic Liturgy, hanging on to the Liturgy we knew in our youth in the 70's and 80's. The Forum�s cries that we must follow the 1964 translation and only the 1964 translation is definitely a minority position. Most of the priests that have complained to me are those who do not want to change the Liturgy the way they learned it in the seminary.

What I personally resent is that it has been made to seem that the complete text of the 1964 translation was in general use in our parishes and that the Council of Hierarchs has shortened it. The reality �on the ground� is that more of our parishes are closer to that text than ever before. Fr. Serge Keleher in his book praises the Mihalik promulgation in his book (pages 37-38), but the reality is that the 2007 translation has, in fact, brought the celebration �on the ground� closer to the 1941 order than did Bishop Mihalik�s promulgation, which left even more pastoral leeway. The reality of the protest, I think, is actually simple, the 2007 translation must be discredited so that certain priests will not lose the right to say the small litanies between the antiphons. It seems to me to be �overkill.� If the Byzantine Liturgy is going to be destroyed because we say, �Again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord,� �Protect us, save us ...,� and �Commemorating our most holy, most pure ... � petitions two times less than in the 1941 recension, and if the Antiphons lose four versicles (they gain one in return in the Third Antiphon), and if we do not say the Litany after the Great Entrance (Cf. Taft, The Great Entrance, p. 428) totally deforms the Liturgy, then there wasn�t much to it in the first place. This is not going to make us less Christian. Likewise, the Council of Hierarchs did not do this, it happened now three generations ago. In any case, what the Council of Hierarchs has done is certainly a restoration from the 40's and 50's, when �latinizing� priests tried to make an �American Liturgy� that was very short and did, in fact, compromise the structure. The beauty of Cyril Korolevsky�s 1941 recension is that it eliminated all latinizations, and the 2007 translation has been faithful to that spirit, even if some pastoral adaptations were made. Since 1985, the Bishops have been leading us to a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, including infant Communion, the elimination of the �filioque,� the restoration of the zeon, and a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, except for one thing: the 2007 translation has threatened a certain group of priests with omission of the recitation of 3 litanies. The great reform of our Liturgy was done in the 1950's, when we moved the Liturgy into the vernacular (a decision that is still being bitterly fought by a small minority). What surprises me is that there are observers who think that this gigantic change into the vernacular can be accomplished without any change in the structure of the Liturgy.

The greater complaint, however, has been over music. My expertise is not in music, so I will not argue the point. My reflection, though, is that the music written to go along with the 2007 translation has been more faithful to the Slavonic models, and, hence, the melodies of this music. This would cause more resentment than the texts of the translation since the more simplified melodies of the 70s� had become habitual. I see this as being healthier in the long run, but admit it will be a long run. I find it ironic that the partisans of the 1964 translation see it as a sine qua non, but see nothing wrong in compromising the music. Of course, what I�ve found on the Forum are those who turn this on its head, and criticize those who insist on a fuller melody while simultaneously not taking all the litanes. These mutual recriminations can go around and around, as it is said �for ages of ages.�

However, the greatest complaint against the 2007 translation has been the use of some �inclusive� language. I refuse to discuss this at great length, except to note two things: 1) the inclusive language has nothing to do with liturgical principles, with liturgical structure or with the meaning of texts. It is not a Liturgical problem, but a problem of social change, which is depicted as totally secular and therefore evil. 2) Both groups agree that the Liturgy proclaims the salvation of all, both men and women, but the more traditional claim that the English term �men� includes women. I hold that the actual situation os more complicated than that, that �men� does denote �males,� but has become a default word for both genders.

Finally, there has ben so little discussion of the one change that is really important - the recitation aloud of the presbyteral prayers, and particularly the anaphora. This is certainly one of the changes that would be almost forced by the return to the vernacular, for if the words can be understood, why hide them? Moreover, the presbyteral prayers - particularly the anaphora - give the theological meaning of the Liturgy, and I would hope that we are interested in that. St. Paul said, �as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26)� This is what the Liturgy is about. This is what Christianity is about, it is about the Paschal mystery, Mark 8:34-35, �Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.� Amen! Would that we would learn this truth, and it is what the anaphoras are about, particularly the Anaphora of St. Basil. The Liturgy of the Word proclaims the Paschal Mystery in its readings from Scripture and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, even more clearly, in the Anaphora. Some will scoff, reading the Anaphora has not �reformed� the church, but I say, it certainly cannot hurt and it is a giant step in the right direction of restoring the Liturgy to its proper shape. I hope that both those who denounce the 2007 translation and those who uphold it will pay more heed to this reality.

I hold that there has been no change in the �rubrics.� They have been rewritten, but do not change practice, except in the incensations before the Gospel and the Great Entrance, which have been barely mentioned on this forum. I bring this up because the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission will be meeting in July. I am certain that many of the objections - from both sides, that the 2007 translation is too �modern� or that it is too �Orthodox� will be brought up. I will mention some of the points made on the Forum, but there has been a widespread critique of the �rubrics,� but this has never been spelled out in any detail. In short, I would like to know what the Forum means when it uses the word �rubric.� Are you referring to the Litanies or Antiphons, which I would not call rubrics but liturgical structure, or are you referring to something else?

"Restored" to what? -- "They ["rubrics"] ... do not change practice" from what? What is the standard for the restoration; what is the standard for the "practice" that has not been changed? What is your reference point?

The point is NOT that the 1964 translation must be followed. The point is that one would expect a complete and faithful translation of the Recension text, and that on the premise that the Ruthenian Recension text is our liturgical heritage. It so happens that the 1965 liturgicon is such a faithful and complete translation, and the 2007 liturgicon is not. That is the inescapable fact, and that is one of the issues.



On the contrary, it has been said a number of times that there have been very few who have experienced the "full" liturgy as in the 1965 liturgicon. But again, that is not the point. The point is that from the time of the 1965 liturgicon until the Parma and Passaic liturgicons, what liturgicon was in use -- though not necessarily taken in full -- in the Metropolia? The Passaic Promulgation even states:

Again, whether or not the 1965 liturgicon was celebrated in full, it was at least available in full. There is nothing in the Passaic Promulgation that explicitly rescinds or prohibits the use of the 1965 liturgicon. (BTW, despite the quote above from the Passaic liturgicon Promulgation, changes were made to the text.) And so that means that ...



Yes, they did. And made it, an abridgment, the exclusive English text. Read the promulgation decree of the 2007 liturgicon:



This certainly is not the result of the innovations of the 2007 liturgicon and has me repeating the question: What in terms of being "closer to that text" has the RDL done that was not available before in the 1965 liturgicon?

Again, the point: The full text of the liturgy in English as a complete translation of the Slavonic text of the Recension was allowed -- was in force -- was possible before the 2007 promulgation. The 2007 promulgation now makes it impossible to celebrate the liturgy in its "full" text even if that were to be desired.

This is as close as Father David has come to explaining why the RDL was needed.

A few comments.

Father David said:
"However, the greatest complaint against the 2007 translation has been the use of some �inclusive� language. I refuse to discuss this at great length, except to note two things: 1) the inclusive language has nothing to do with liturgical principles, with liturgical structure or with the meaning of texts. It is not a Liturgical problem, but a problem of social change, which is depicted as totally secular and therefore evil. 2) Both groups agree that the Liturgy proclaims the salvation of all, both men and women, but the more traditional claim that the English term �men� includes women. I hold that the actual situation os more complicated than that, that �men� does denote �males,� but has become a default word for both genders."


He refuses to say or discuss at length who deemed the inclusive language necessary. Why is this? This is the biggest issue of why myself and others have left the BCC. I'm not your typical 75 plus year old someone who could care less (or even has a clue that inclusive language is being used! I'm sure the revisionists were banking on that fact,) and is only worried about where they will be buried from. There are younger people who were cradle Byzantines such as myself, who loved the church and left because we refuse to drink the same "social" Kool-Aid that the Latin Rite was forced to drink 40 years ago.

A poster in another thread said that himself and nine others from the same BCC parish were Chrismated Orthodox. Nine! Can a church as small as the BCC afford to lose 10 people in one shot? What is the ultimate goal here?

I wonder if Father David could explain if the OCA or any other Orthodox jurisdiction is wrong for not using inclusive language? Are the faithful going to suffer socially and spiritually? I highly doubt it.

Father David proposes that his RDL will have the same effect on our church as the Novus Ordo had on the Latin rite. Of that I have little doubt.

He writes: "Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full. I went to a Roman liturgy recently and the congregation was probably about half the size of our eparchy." Interesting research strategy.

It isn't just traditionalists who associate the new liturgy with declining Mass attendance rates. Rod Stark, a non-Catholic sociologist of religion, observes that pre VII attendance rates exceeded 70 percent (_Churching of America_, rev. ed., Rutgers UP 2005, pp. 256-257). A Catholic News Agency release from two weeks ago quotes a Georgetown researcher (again, not a hotbed of traditionalism) as estimating current attendance rates of about a quarter. Let me repeat: the share of Latin-rite Catholics who do NOT attend Sunday Mass has risen from under a third to three-quarters.

That is a huge change, and the reason for it is not hard to see. The decline began in the mid- to late-60s, implying that the most likely culprit was the Novus Ordo (although a minority of scholars like Fr Andrew Greeley blame it on _Humanae Vitae_; again, see _Churching of America_). This is not a traditionalist whine, just the standard scholarly view of a remarkable change in religious practice.

Fr David is free to tune the bad news out, of course, and he is also free to wave off complaints by saying any change will draw complaints. But history shows, whether he likes it or not, that liberalized liturgies kill church attendance. And there is no sign that his RDL will do otherwise. None.

John Murray

I think "reformed Divine Liturgy" is more descriptive.


You make this evaluation after one Mass? at one parish?



It is good to know that there are priests who also see the problems with this reformation.



Why do you "personally resent" this?


Tradition is "overkill"???


When I was in the BCC, I recall our Liturgy being shortened by the 2007 reforms.


Or perhaps organically developed?



Is it a "fuller melody" or is it more difficult to sing?


Indeed. And there is good reason that it is the "greatest complaint".



When the secular world is permitted to affect the language of the Liturgy, it is also affecting the priciples, structure, and meaning--in a secular way.

I believe that it is a "Liturgical problem".


And so the "more traditional" view has been scrapped.


There has been much discussion about that subject. Many do not care for the changes.



Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail on what you mean by "theological meaning".

I see a few problems here.
(1.) The use of "inclusive language" is problematic. It creates ambiguities which were not there before ("for us and our salvation"-does this mean "us" in the room only?). The Liturgy is no place for "social engineering". Liurgiam Authenticam wisely instructs the Latin Church not to dabble in such language, but rather to catechize as to the inclusive intent of such words as "mankind".

(2.) As Deacon Anthony point out, what we have is a legal supression of a full celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the rescension which was promulgated for the good of our jurisdiction.

(3.) There is also the issue of the 1996 Liturgical Instruction from the Congrgation for Eastern Churches which indicates that we should do NOTHING liturgically which would alienate those Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome!
I don't have any hard statistics, but my sense is that it would be very difficult to find any Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction which would be comfortable with this (RDL) translation. If anyone is aware that such a jurisdiction exists, please do let me know of it! I live in what is jokingly referred to as "Orthodox Heaven". We have a siginificant OCA parish in my town, and a ROCOR (former OCA) parish in the next town over. I showed our new text to a local, "Greek-Catholic friendly" retired OCA priest. On one hand, he liked the big, readable print, but, on the other hand, he said "why this obsession with gender"? I wouldn't dare show it to the ROCOR priest, because he thinks our older translations (Pittsburgh 1965 and Passaic 1996) are even deficient. So much for taking that instruction seriously!

I haven't seen any defections in my parish because of the translation, but we are not seeing anybody breaking down the doors to get in because we no longer use that "awful male chauvinist" language in prayer!

Dn. Robert

Fr. David,

I just returned from another great pilgrimage to my Grandfather's village church in Transcarpathia. I have experienced the full liturgical cycle all in one morning (Matins, Divine Liturgy, Vespers) with the AUTHENTIC Subcarpathian Prostopinije music. I dear say I don't think that will ever happen here in America in the "Sui Juris Byzantine Metropolitan Church of America" and that is a sad reality.

Can anyone help me upload the video clips onto this Byzantine Forum so everyone can get a glimse of what I just experienced and make their own comparisons and conclusions with the RDL?

Ung

This (and what follows) is one of a number of points in Fr. David's post that astounds me. Given that the Recension dates from 1941, the issue of the '�latinizing� priests [who] tried to make an �American Liturgy�' sounds to me like a leadership (episcopate) and obedience (presbyterate) problem, not one of the Recension itself.

aka the Ruthenian Recension; however much the work of one man, hardly his recension.



Given that the 1965 English translation liturgicon is a full translation of the beautiful "Korolevsky...recension" and that "[s]ince 1985, the Bishops have been leading us to a fuller celebration of the Liturgy," what were they leading us to, ultimately, if not the Korolevsky/Ruthenian Recension? How is proscribing the full translation of the 1965 liturgicon and mandating the abridged and modified 2007 liturgicon leading us to a "a fuller celebration of the Liturgy"? Does the 1965 liturgicon have some kind of a disobedience trigger that the 2007 does not? Again the question: In terms of a fuller celebration of the liturgy, what does the 2007 liturgicon accomplish that was not possible with the 1965?


There are practical considerations for not decimating the rite of the three antiphons as has been done, but what would be the harm in taking the full version if desired, or of taking the other eliminated litanies?

But more to the point, I submit that the whole flow of the liturgy at the Prayers of the Faithful and the Cherubicon have been SIGNIFICANTLY altered, and modified. How could that be glossed over?

One again I say, I am bewildered. I do not speak for the forum on what is meant by "rubrics", but I have asked a specific question about the rubrics: Rubric question: after Ambon Prayer . Part of my frustration is that I simply ask a question, not a challenge, and get no explanation or worse, have been told it is in the Recension text of the liturgicon or the Ordo when it is not.

This is but one example of several changes in the rubrics in the 2007 liturgicon from what is given in the Recension. Consequently, I do not understand how it can be asserted that 'I hold that there has been no change in the �rubrics.�'

Most of the points that Father David raises in his post have already been discussed at great length in threads he has participated in. I had written a fairly lengthy post to address some of these points but have decided to hold off on posting it for now. If Father David is truly seeking input on these points I would be happy to provide mine again, though it would probably be best to begin new a new thread for each of the topics.

I am immensely thrilled to learn that the Inter-Eparchial Liturgy Commission will be meeting again, and that it will revisit the Revised Divine Liturgy in light of the many objections.

Firstly, I suggest that rather than be annoyed with the disagreement with the RDL the entire Church take heart. People who do not care do not bother to argue. That people still care is a good sign.

Secondly, given the many opinions on how the Divine Liturgy should be celebrated the only way forward is to look to the standard that exists � the 1942 Liturgicon and all the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension. This standard is ours and it unites us as Church. It also unites us to both the other Churches that use the Ruthenian recension as well to all Byzantine Churches.

Thirdly, there is an opportunity here. Since people do care about their Church this good will can be put to work in healing the hurt caused by the RDL and building towards the future.

I�ve provided an action plan in numerous posts in these discussions but I will offer a brief summary again in the hopes that the bishops and commissions will use it as their objective standard:

1. Declare all of the official Slavonic books of the Ruthenian recension as normative for the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America.

2. Prepare English language editions of the official Slavonic books that are as exact as possible. The objective standard used in preparing the translations should be: 1) Completeness, 2) Accuracy, and 3) Pastoral Sensitivity. Every word in the official Church Slavonic editions should be in the English editions. This is inclusive of liturgical texts and rubrics, forwards and indexes. Translations should be literal and exact balanced only with elegance and respect for what is memorized. Nothing should be added that is not a translation of the original Church Slavonic texts, except the approval and printing information. Nothing should be omitted. If the existing translation is memorized and is an acceptable translation, don�t change it. [Look to the Liturgical Instruction and documents like Liturgiam Authenticam for guidance.]

3. Issue a Liturgical Instruction that details permitted abbreviations and changes. For example, note that the praying of the litanies between the antiphons are normative to the recension and should be taken, but are not mandatory. Also note permission to pray the Anaphora aloud while respecting the received tradition for the priest to pray it quietly (that is, to offer liberty to the individual priest in this matter).

4. Through education, example and encouragement over the course of five years slowly raise the standard of celebration in all parishes to roughly the full content of what is included the Levkulic Pew Book. But, of course, a new edition of that Pew Book would provide the complete Liturgy. Cathedrals and pro-cathedrals would lead the way and set the example.

Mandates do not work. The only way to raise the celebration in parishes is to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in a manner that is so attractive that both clergy and laity want it celebrated that way in their own parishes.

We must remember that the people did not ask for abbreviated Liturgies. The abbreviations came from those in authority. While many parishes suffer from the �get it done in 45 minutes� problem the answer is not mandates but good Liturgy. Good Liturgy is attractive Liturgy. When Liturgy is attractive 60 or 75 minutes goes quickly. When Liturgy is not attractive even 30 minutes can be beyond endurance for some.

The above principles are can generally be applied to Vespers, Matins and the other services. Music, of course, is a separate issue but principles similar to those given above apply.

I pray that the Council of Hierarchs and the various commissions already have the principles I�ve outlined above in mind. I believe that they are the only ones that can bring unity and healing to our Church.

John

I'll admit to be a liturgical simpleton, and really don't know the ins and outs of the different color books, and the 1941/1965/etc versions of the liturgies. I am curious, however, about one rubrical difference between the only older text I have - the Ordo Celebrationis - published by Eastern Christian Publications and the new liturgicon. The Ordo has several rubrical indications for opening and closing the holy doors, whereas the new liturgicon calls for the doors to be opened at the beginning of the liturgy and closed at the end.

Does this not qualify as a rubrical change?

This is somewhat of a sore point because we have a very small mission parish, and some of us spent considerable time and effort to construct doors for our portable iconostasis [hrbcc.org] that were light enough to open without pulling over the entire iconostasis with the imparted torque, only to be told almost immediately afterward that "We don't really use those anymore."

It would if that rubrical change had not been first approved by Rome in 1953. Some will be quick to say that approval was meant to be temporary, which is true, but that approval was never rescended. Leaving the doors open has become our legitimate custom, having been used with approval for over 50 years now and for many before that, and was obviously approved again in 2001.

Regardless of rubrics for the Liturgy, an Icon Screen still needs doors as they are to be shut when the Litrugy is not taking place.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ed - yes, it is a rubrical change from the original approved Ordo. And in spite of more recent approved deviations, it has never been officially rescinded. If you continue to look you will find more than one difference.

For those interested in the documents:

1955 Ordo translation; see d.) and note (2) [patronagechurch.com]

Bishop Ivancho's request; see No. 118 [patronagechurch.com]

Rome's response; see n. 118 [patronagechurch.com]

The request and reply reference section 118:

Ordo; see section 118 [patronagechurch.com]

which references footnote (39):

Ordo; see section 117, note (39) [patronagechurch.com]

Note that the footnotes are not in, are not a part of the Ordo [patronagechurch.com] itself.

The approvals/correspondences for the 2007 (2001) and 1965 liturgicons have, unfortunately, not been made available.

Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Rome produced the Ordo in 44. It was never promulagted. So yes, it is a change on paper but not a change in actual practice. And even the change on paper was approved, twice.

What is required for a promulgation? Perhaps formally there was none but the intent was certainly there:

Letter of Ivancho to Tisserant [patronagechurch.com]

Keeping the doors open has become common, although that does not seem the intention in the correspondences.

Interestingly enough, over on OCANEWS.org there is mention of a new liturgy book just out for the OCA. This book instructs, amoung other things, that priestly prayers (including the Eucharistic prayer) be taken silently and that the word "lord" is inserted before the commemoration of the metropolitan, ie. "our lord, Metropolitan X," in the litanies, and has some (sadly) amusing typos. There seems to be some uproar from "the people" that "how can they say 'Amen' to what they do not hear?" So I am wondering if audible prayers are more common in the OCA than is previously thought, or if this is just people "biting back" at change. I feel for them either way.

RDL issues aside, there�s something about this statement that I find highly offensive. If you were, as you say, a cradle Byzantine Catholic, then it is reasonable to assume that these �typical 75 plus year old someones� you speak of are, no doubt, your own parents and grandparents. And if they, like you, are cradle Byzantines, then they�ve weathered storms and changes within their Church that you can�t even imagine. Yet they stayed. Had they �abandoned ship� in the midst of their own times of turmoil, you most certainly would not have been born the cradle Byzantine that you were.

For you to imply that it is typical of these parishioners to be individuals who �could care less,� �[don�t have] a clue� and are �only worried about where they will be buried from� smacks of insensitivity in the highest degree. These people are not stupid � they represent the shoulders upon which we stand today. The fact that you have youth and probably even education on your side does not automatically make you and the other younger cradle Byzantines you speak of any better than they. I�m embarrassed to see your uncharitable comments characterized as being �typical� of our elderly parishioners, and I feel that they are owed an apology. It�s a shame that you apparently felt unable to make your point without resorting to denigrating this group of people who, for the most part, don�t even participate on this Forum and, hence, have no opportunity to defend themselves.

Al (a pilgrim)

No apologies here. My own parents and many other older Byzantines I've talked to really don't care about the inclusive language or any other aspect of the RDL other than the new music, and how they don't like how it sounds.

I don't think my post was uncharitable or hurtful. It's a big dose of the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Everyone knows the majority of the BCC parishioners are 60 plus and would never leave no matter what happens. I'm younger and have a little more time left on earth, so I did what I believe was the right thing to do.

The author of that article has many negative things to say about many subjects. Do you have any other sources about these "new" Liturgy books and the "uproar from the people"?

Where can we find these books? I would love to do a comparison of the minor changes and typos from the OCA reprinting versus the major overhaul of the BCC RDL.

Here is the context from the original:


I'm looking at this in terms of the RDL and the use of honorifics not found in the source texts, and the neglect of other designations that are there. One criticism of the RDL is the tendency for embellishing the liturgical text, which simply has Vladyko/Despota/Master, and requiring such specific titles as Reverend Father or Most Reverend Bishop or even Most Reverend Metropolitan etc. Why not simply "Master" as found in the source texts rather than overworking the translation by reading more into the text than what is there (eisegesis through translation). Two anecdotes, which prove nothing, but illustrate the result: (1) at the annual DC pro-life Compline the Bishop who usually leads the service could not come but the books were printed and so, to the priest who filled-in, the request sung as in the booklet "Most Reverend Bishop give the blessing." (2) At the inauguration liturgy for +William as Bishop of Passaic, presided over by Met. Basil, at the end "Most Reverend Metropolitan give the blessing" was the sung request but Bishop William steps forth to give the blessing (And BTW there in Passaic's Cathedral with all our hierarchs present, "Give me Your Body O Christ" was sung, more than once, during the communion of the clergy.) My point for (1) and (2) above is that had it just been "Master" basically both instances would have just worked out.

Regarding the OCA issue and the RDL: the Recension text ( 196 [patronagechurch.com] ) does have an honorific that even the 1965 translation ( 15 [patronagechurch.com] ) avoided: Kyr. That the OCA translation (I presume it is also in the Vulgata/Russian recension) would choose to render this as "lord" is ill-advised mainly because of the confusion, as seen in the quote above, of this title with the other, familiar, "sacred" word for "Lord", Hospod.

My suggestion: Abolish all the pompous-sounding and wordy honorifics that are not in the source texts and simply translate Vladyko/Despota as what it is, Master; and if one chooses not to avoid the formal designation then just use the transliterated title thus: For the most-reverend Archbishop, our Metropolitan Kyr ___, for our God-loving Bishop, Kyr _____ ...

A touch of the old Slavonic in our English translation -- why not, whatever our ethnic background, it's our liturgical heritage .

ajk-

the problem with "Kyr" is that in the English language it denotes a standard abbreviation for millenium or 1000 years. (k= 1000, yr= year) Granted, this is used mainly by geologists and astronomists. Though I guess this would be appropriate since we do ask God to grant "many years."

For easier reference:

A Providential Typo From God
by David Barrett, Southbury CT

I thank God for the varied and insightful editorials and reflections that have recently appeared on this website, specifically by Mark Stokoe and Matushka Donna Farley. They validate some of the points I made in my last reflection (�The Synod of Bishops � In the Wrong Place in Egypt�). Sadly, as all the recent posts on this site have predicted, none of these warnings, pleadings, or observations have had any impact on present circumstances.

In fact, things just seem to be getting worse.


An example of this is the recently released new edition of the Divine Liturgy service book for priests. After allowing the last edition to become unavailable by being out of print, our ever-predictable Metropolitan has come up with a new version, more wieldy in size (some priests are already complaining that it does not conveniently fit into the pockets of their cassocks or riasas) and with some backwards-moving changes. The new version is replete with dozens of references/rubrical instructions on each page for prayers to be �secret� or �said secretly�. One wonders if these supra-clerical (meaning, anti-laity) clerics are even aware of the First Epistle of Peter, where the entire Body of the Church (specifically, in this context, the laity) are referred to as �a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God�s own people� (1 Pet 2:9). As the recently retired (should have been deposed) Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai, once told his flock in his diocese when asked why he said the liturgical prayers silently, �Those are my prayers!� This is the typical, mutated type of ecclesiology one expects from a hierarch who never finished his theological education.


Another not only sad, but very skewed, change is in the petitions of the litanies that pray for our hierarchs, specifically the Metropolitan. Previous editions of this service book read, �For the holy Orthodox patriarchs, for our Metropolitan _____ �. Now, this has been superceded by, �� for our lord, Metropolitan _____ �. I recall from my studies in Church History that our calendar contains martyrs who shed their blood and lost their lives for refusing to call any emperor (Roman, Byzantine, or otherwise) �lord�. And yet, here we have our so-called spiritual �leader� putting that very title for himself in the Liturgy service book.


What are also found numerous times throughout this new edition are typographical errors. It seems that the Divine Liturgy is not important enough to warrant a proofreader/editor before the new service book is printed and released. However, there is one typo that stands out. On page 17, in �The Liturgy of Preparation�, the text of the new edition reads, �By being nailed to the Cross and pierced with a spear, Thou hast poured immorality upon men.� Not �immortality� as the text calls for and previous editions have stated, but �immorality�.


On one level, this may seem to be just another typo among many. Yet, on another level, it may be a providential typo allowed by God. Just as God spoke to Elijah, not in the strong wind or the earthquake or the fire, but in the �still small voice� (1 Kg 19:12), so now, God often speaks to us in the silent, small details of daily life, if we are only quiet within and without, having eyes to see and ears to hear. This typo is a pronouncement and a summation of the �ministry� of Metropolitan Herman, who, consistently and unwaveringly throughout this crisis, has poured out immorality upon the Church in America. One does not have to look far to find examples of this. In fact, Matushka Donna Farley mentioned the latest one in her reflection, when she stated that the Metropolitan gave a clergy award to the priest who is being sued for breaching pastoral confidentiality, and she fittingly referred to this incident as �pastoral carelessness�.

(David Barrett is a MA & MDiv graduate of St Vladimir�s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, New York. He has been a choir director in the OCA for thirty-two years, currently serving at Christ the Savior parish in Southbury, Connecticut)

Click on the "Share your comments" tab at ocanews.org and then read some of the comments from people on this reflection. I should have posted the links to begin.

I see one comment poking fun at the typo--and some other people bashing the Metropolitan. Any other sources?

Typographical errors are often amusing (I would hate to tell you some of the howlers of which I have been guilty!). My favorite remains an English translation of the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great which reads:

"We have seen the typos of Your Holy Resurrection . .."

Fr. Serge

Look again at the "Share your comments" section for the article "The DC Town Hall." In just a quick perusal of the comments I found references and comments, in whole or part about the changes in the DL book of the OCA approved by Met. Herman, or topics relevant to the changes. Look at comment numbers: 1,8,11,19,23,24,25,26,28,29,31,32,34,35,42,43,44, and 50. Gotta read all the way down. My guess is too, if they're dicussing this on OCANEWS.org it's probably also a topic on the Orthodox Forum on Yahoo. Might want to check there.

honestly though, i have never once heard the issue of the liturgical handbook come up as a topic of conversation at the local OCA parish in which i spend quite a bit of time.

Sorry can't find it. But I sure am glad people are concerned. Can you imagine if they tried to add gender neutral language!

Here's the link:

http://www.ocanews.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/257-The-DC-Town-Hall.html

In response to "A Providential Typo From God," the reflection by David Barrett:

Thank you so much for writing clearly and succinctly what must be said about the new Liturgy book from Metropolitan HERMAN and St Tikhon's Press.

Perhaps in our day one of the most important qualifications for Metropolitan should be his vision for American Orthodoxy and concern to reach out this nation's citizens with the Faith of the Apostles. Saint Tikhon taught, "Orthodox people must care for the spread of the Orthodox faith among the heterodox. The light of Orthodoxy is not lit for a small circle of people." Tragically, the changes in the new Liturgy book reveal our Metropolitan to be unqualified for his office. I write this with absolutely no ill will toward His Beatitude, and I believe he should be replaced regardless of whether he participated in Bob Kondratick's / Metropolitan THEODOSIUS' embezzlement or not.

Praying the Liturgy --the people's work-- silently is a battle I thought was fought and won long ago in the O.C.A. To backslide into such misguided practices shows a lack of vision for an American Orthodoxy where the people participate and the liturgy is truly the prayer of all.

But even moreso, reverting back to the title, "Lord," for the Metropolitan (I'm told it is a common slavic practice) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American piety and a total disregard for the concern of American Christians to recognize the preeminence of Jesus Christ as the sole Lord of the universe. This is beyond evangelistic insensitivity, beyond a refusal of our mandate to enculturalize the Gospel in America for Americans, it demonstrates a rejection of our mission to be apostolic and to become The American Orthodox Church.

As Father Michael Oleksa so aptly put it, �The Church has always been, in the minds of her saints, in America for Americans, and needs to adjust her procedures and mentality, her style and her structures to accommodate this society, this culture, in this land... We must embrace the place, the land, the people, and the culture, and present Orthodoxy as the fulfillment of what was already here, as the �rest of the story,� the completion of whatever has gone before.�

In America today, any Metropolitan who rubricly codifies reciting the prayers of the Liturgy silently and requires himself to be addressed as "Lord" should be removed from Synodal leadership simply for approving those changes in our service books alone. Such a Metropolitan truly fulfills Saidna PHILIP's critique: "Orthodoxy, despite her past glory, remains the best kept secret in this land because of our failure to understand the missionary dimensions of the Church." With or without scandal, such a Metropolitan should be rejected by the American faithful --without hard feelings and without condemnation, but rejected none the less. He is simply not right for America, because he will not lead us forward in the establishment of a truly American Church.

Sadly (horrifically), the "immorality" typo speaks for itself.

Father Mark Hodges
St Stephen the First Martyr
Lima Ohio
www.orthodoxlima.org [orthodoxlima.org]
fr.mark.hodges@juno.com
(419) 224-8600

Dear Fr. Mark - I have always wondered, if we don't hear the "silent" prayers, how we are supposed to interpret "...for unto Thee are due all glory, honor and worship...", i.e. if we don't hear the first part of the sentence. The Liturgy is full of examples like this.

btw, one of the readers at our parish was reading the post-communion prayers after Divine Liturgy, and suddenly stopped, looked at me with confusion, and summoned me to his side. Turns out he had purchased the new and improved St Tikhons book, and found out that they have separated the post-commuion prayers into two, discontinuous parts.

Supposedly they are also working on a new edition of the Apostol. I don't know whether to look forward to it with dred or anticipation.
#8.1 Michael Strelka on 2008-07-01 10:51 (Reply) Michael,

Even more telling than hearing the half-sentence, "...for, unto THee are due all glory, honor, and worship,..." is during the Anaphora: Let's say the main celebrant is Fr Paul or Bishop John. If everything is said secretly, and then, all of a sudden, I hear, "Take, eat! This is my body!" or, "Drink of it, all of you! This is my blood!", what am I really hearing? THIS is what I'm hearing: "Take, eat! This is MY, meaning, Fr Paul's or Bishop John's body or blood!!! And we're supposed to sing "Amen!" to THAT??? That's the rankest form of heresy!!!!! Yet, in countless parishes where things are done secretly (wasn't that the modus operandi of the KGB??), this is precisely what is affirmed!!
#8.1.1 David Barrett on 2008-07-01 18:06 (Reply) Concerning the new Liturgy book, there is another flaw: at the beginning of the Anaphora, in the sentence beginning "It is meet and right ...," the text also omits "to praise Thee." So proof-reading was not properly done.

As for the issue of "silent prayers," it is interesting to note that both the Church of Greece and the Church of Serbia have directed their clergy to return to the ancient practice of reciting these prayers loudly enough to be heard by the people. (It caused riots in Serbia; but then, Serbs, unlike we Sicilians, have always been a tad excitable.) It is also interesting to note that Novela 136 (or is it 137? I can never remember) of the Emperor Justinian outlaws the INNOVATION of the Anaphora being said "silently."

All of the "silent prayers" except two (prayers recited quietly by the priest before the Great Entrance and before "Holy Things for the Holy," both of which are clearly personal to the priest) were meant to be said aloud. Why? Because they are offered in the name of the whole assembly. The "Amen" sung by the people is an assent, not just to the doxology, but to the whole prayer; and as the Apostle asks in 1 Cor.14:16, how can a person say "'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?"

It was sheer laziness ("Can't we make this thing shorter? There's a chariot race this afternoon!") which led to their being said while the choir or people were singing. That the Metropolitan is attempting to return to a theologically unsound innovation is sad, liturgically pathetic, spiritually destructive and, not surprisingly, out of step with developments in world Orthodoxy.

And speaking of the word "liturgy," let us be clear that the word does NOT mean "work of the people." It means "a work done FOR the people by a private individual at his own expense" (e.g. a soldier serving in the army without pay and buying his own armaments &c., or a public official serving in office without pay). And just to be clear: the "private individual" in this case is NOT the priest, but Jesus Christ. The word was chosen because it describes perfectly what the Divine Liturgy celebrates and makes present: the saving work of Christ in His death and Resurrection. The authentic definition of "liturgy" does not at all justify the clericalization embodied in "silent prayers;" but words must be used properly.

Fr. Philip

Thank YOU for your reflection! The worst change by far is to revert back to praying the liturgy silently. I was taught this came from around the 400's as a result of well-intentioned but misguided piety (and fear, like the practice of postponing baptism until one's deathbed). With the silent prayers came the addition of the so-called "Little Litanies," whose purpose is solely to give the priest time to pray without being heard. What a far cry from the liturgical vision of St Basil when he champions his cathedral rite!

Perhaps the "lord" issue centers around the question of every Orthodox generation, "What is Holy Tradition?" (We must not equate customs --even venerable ones-- with Tradition. �Loyalty to Holy Tradition demands of us a constantly renewed act of discernment between the two.") I think it also focuses on one of our most needed debates, "How are we to reach out to and baptize this nation?" The question of the convicted at Pentecost, "What must we do to be saved?," is a valid one for this time and people, too --not in minimalistic terms like many Protestants would frame it, but like the Church at the first council in Acts 15. Americans are coming to faith in Christ within His true Church; what is required of them?

I sincerely appreciate and am aware of the fact that in Serbian, Greek, Russian and other languages the use of the title, "Lord" continues to have widespread acceptance and is understood properly. The point is not that in other
languages and other cultures and in other times the word "lord" is unacceptable, after all the Bible itself praises Sarah for calling her husband Abraham just that. The whole point is we are in America, and in twenty-first century America at that. We wouldn't force our wives to call us "lord," because in this society today --and I'm talking about both American secular society in general and the subculture of Evangelical, Protestant, and Charismatic America-- to call someone "lord" is as close to ascribing divinity to them as you can linguistically get.

A related issue we need to face is our need to understand and listen to this culture in this time. Just as we Orthodox since the Seventh Ecumenical Council would not use the term "worship" or "adoration" for anyone but God (we would not say, "I worship you" to another human being), so also modern American Protestants (generally speaking) do not use certain words, like "idol" (an Evangelical would never say "I idolize you," or, "so-and-so is my idol"), or "Savior," or "Lord" (capitalized or not). Simply put, no matter how the title was used in centuries past, to call the Metropolitan "our Lord" is to say that we consider him to be our God. If we are to reach out to Americans, we need to hear this, understand and appreciate the good basis for why this is, and accommodate our speaking so as to best communicate in this culture and in this time to this people.

One may perhaps counter that in many areas we should intentionally not accommodate this prideful culture, rather, we need to teach this nation how to honor its leaders. But this subordinates our true purpose in America to an attempt to impose Russian or Greek Orthodoxy here. Our mission is to redeem this culture, and our goal is to baptize America. It's a matter of not putting additional and unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of the Gospel. Perhaps the acceptability of "Lord" and other similar impositions is debatable as a matter of degree, but my opinion is quite strongly that while we do have many things to teach this land (and there are already so many essential things which require Americans to make whole paradigm shifts to become Orthodox), the "line" should be drawn well before we insist on calling the Metropolitan our "Lord."

The point I'm trying to make is that the new Liturgy book has been published "out of context," without consideration or even caring about the people it's for (or even the modern English language --but that's another issue!). Metropolitan HERMAN's approval of these changes (silent eucharistic prayers, "Lord," and others) in our service books indicates a lack of vision, sensitivity, and care for America. Irregardless of whether he is guilty of crimes and without any imputation of guilt or malice, he is not right for The Orthodox Church in America in the 21st century.

Father Mark Hodges

If we are going to play paste and cut from the OCA websites, then here are a few as well from http://www.ocanews.org/news/THreeReflections12.12.06.html:





I think the lesson is quite simple; both a silent and aloud anaphora are with us; any universal mandates one way or the other will be wrought with difficulty. I simply cannot believe the Holy Spirit has blessed 1500 years of "abuse" with allowing the Church to continue to grow and flourish in that time, especially when that alleged "abuse" involves the very heart of the Mystery of Mysteries.

Fr. Deacon Randy,

I posted them for Recluse who seems unable to find them, as well as unable to believe anyone in the OCA would be in agreement with anything from the RDL.

But I must disagree with you. The Church has survived with many abuses occuring within her and will continue to do so until Our Lord comes again. That abuse or, in this case, less than optimal practice has become entrenched does not mean it has the blessing of the Holy Spirit.

Fr. Deacon Lance

And I will disagree as well - the failed mandates are even greater proof where the "abuse" or "less than optimal practice" lies; 1500 years of solid usage by the body of the Church is certainly compelling where she has been led. The Protestants also say we were misled from early on.

Abuses rarely bring good fruit - the continued growth and flourishing of the Church with what has come to be far and away the "mainstream" practice speaks for itself. It is no abuse.

The modern problems of churches trying to recreate themselves in the name of renewal also speaks for itself. Often what is tried and true and is solid practice is that way for a reason, and best not tampered with.

And again I will clarify that I am not strictly opposed to the aloud anaphora; I do not prefer it for many reasons, but I do believe rather it should be to pastoral need and sensitivity to decide this, and not absolute mandates that throughout history have been essentially useless and have effected no real change in the practice.

It appears that we and the OCA are facing a similar situation except that the roles are reversed. A common factor, however, is that in both instances, the Authority is mandating an exclusive practice over another that has been or recently become customary.

I think in both instances Authority should just be a little flexible, tolerant and patient.

Especially in the case of the RDL, does anyone dispute that the practice stipulated in the liturgicon indicates -- and has for some considerable time -- that parts are inaudible or said in a low voice? Are we really inheriting a 1500+ year abuse or a legitimate practice for its time, that time is indicating (maybe) should be altered, but gradually and "organically"?

I had put forth the following proposition in an attempt to establish a consensus [ link ]:


To which Fr. David responded:


So it's not just the audible Anaphora, but the audible Anaphora ONLY and NOW.

I believe that Father David misunderstands my point, or has summarized it poorly in his post.

I seek liberty for the individual priest to pray the Anaphora either quietly according to the received tradition or aloud. I have stated this consistently and clearly, so Father David is incorrect in summarizing my position here.

I oppose the mandate of the Council of Hierarchs to pray these prayers aloud. I do so for two main reasons:

1. There is no equivalent mandate across Orthodoxy to pray the Anaphora aloud. In the Liturgical Instruction (#21) we read: "In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." Allowing liberty is one thing but mandating a custom forbidden in most Orthodox Churches is something quite different. The Council of Hierarchs should respect this directive.

2. I am not the one that has stated that the audible anaphora is a failed experiment in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics themselves have stated this. I have quoted extensively especially from the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who quotes German liturgists that say the custom has created a "crisis" in the Roman Catholic Church. Father David certainly has the right to disagree with Benedict XVI. I do not think, however, he can continue to dismiss the case put forth by the current Holy Father. My point here again is liberty, that the Council of Hierarchs should not imitate with mandate the experiment in the Roman Church when the Roman Catholics themselves are saying it didn't work. Liberty allows the Spirit to work. Mandates do not.

Father David's position of mandating the aloud anaphora (and certain other prayers) is considered very radical by most Orthodox and failed by many very intelligent Roman Catholics. We ought not to mandate his personal desires for the Divine Liturgy. We have an objective standard in the 1942 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. Translate it accurately and completely. Do not skip anything. Do not add anything. Do not change anything. Translations should be literal and elegant, balanced only with respect for what has been memorized over the past 40 years. The Divine Liturgy does not need reform. It needs to be prayed in its full, official form so that it forms us into authentic Byzantine Christians.

I am away at the moment, but when I return home I will start several new threads to respond to Father David's post. I had hoped that he might respond to my most recent posts about using objective standards for preparing English language books.

There is absolutely no dispute about the importance of the Anaphora to the Divine Liturgy. Holding the position that the received custom our Church holds with all of Orthodoxy (that it be prayed quietly) should be permitted until a different custom develops organically across all of the Byzantine Churches (if it ever does) does not in any way suggest that the Anaphora is unimportant.

That's a valid question, Fr. Deacon, and I am unconvinced that it really is an "organic" change, since forced attempts at unilaterally changing it have fallen miserably. John has correctly pointed to some re-thinking the Latin church is doing in this matter.

Can we be so quick to dismiss 1500 years of sensus fidelium as misguided?

In the Kyivan Church, one cannot deny that the entire received tradition from the time of St. Volodymyr through the Union was NOT one of an aloud anaphora.

I find it very difficult to believe that when I sing: "We have seen the true Light. We have received the heavenly Spirit. We have found the true faith. We worship the undivided Trinity for having saved us." that I don't really mean it because of an inherent defect of practice, or perhaps should sing it with a caveat - I have sort of found the true faith, but with notations of defective practice...

I must say, with no malice intended, that this must rank as one of the lamest examples of a justification for audible liturgical prayers I have heard. Whoever would inquire "If everything is said secretly, and then, all of a sudden, I hear, "Take, eat! This is my body!" or, "Drink of it, all of you! This is my blood!", what am I really hearing?", with the above conclusion, is in need of evangelization or at the least a catechesis or mystagogy. A proper participation in the Divine Liturgy (Eucharist) presumes a degree of mystical (sacramental) initiation, preparation, and illumination.

If someone says "this is my book" or "this is my overcoat", or even "this is my family", he does not normally put on vestments, offer incense, and sing these words. The context makes it clear that the Institution Narrative does not indicate that the Eucharist is the priest's personal possession.

Fr. Serge

John said: "I am not the one that has stated that the audible anaphora is a failed experiment in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics themselves have stated this."

However, I would presume that you do not disagree with them. I would correct your statement, though, to say "S[u]ome[/u] Roman Catholics have stated this." It is most certainly not Roman Catholics in general who hold that this is a failed experiment.
I note again that the importance of the Anaphora is not discussed on this Forum. John says it is important but why is it important and is its importance not so great as to strongly favor the people's hearing? Instead, all the argumentation is what I would call "exterior argumentation." That is, "it's a long-standing tradition" or "it's not the law and shouldn't be mandated", etc. We're not asking what it means or why it is important but it is a long-standing tradition that it is not said aloud, so there you are. One priest told me that the anaphora only has historical significance and is no longer necessary. Depending on one's proclivity, one can simply say the Words of Instition or an Epiclesis (silently) and pass out Communion.
I say no, and this is something I would die for. I say that the anaphora most perfectly fulfills Paul's injunction, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26)" The Liturgy should be a little disturbing, it should transform us into the body of Christ and send us forth to live and proclaim his good news, "Let us go forth in peace ... in the Name of the Lord." If the bishops think this is important, then they have the perfect right to mandate it. I think the question did not arise until the second half of the 20th century for us because the Liturgy was not in the vernacular and we would not have understood a long prayer like this. It was, therefore, until after 1950, a moot point.
The bishops can mandate it if they believe it important. I would hold that in John's view, our Church is powerless. We can do something only if the Orthodox do it, and then not even if the Orthodox do it but only if all the Orthodox or at least the vast majority do it. According to John's principle, we would only be an isolated fragment of a church that does not have the power to act on behalf of the spiritual welfare of its people, a right that was even conceded by the (controversial) Balamand statement.
We must take care. Each generation must "reform" the Liturgy to assure that it is in conformity with the Lord's command, "Do this in memory of me." I do not condemn the generations that have gone before us, they did the best they could, but the anaphora was not in the vernacular and the same understanding was not there.
I mean no insult to anyone, for God knows our hearts and our faith in Him, and both sides may have great faith. However, it is my mentality and my "presumption" that I cannot help but think that an overwhelming devotion to certain perceived ritual norms is not a little like some of the ancient Romans who could not see why we have to worship just one God now while the many gods have served us well for many centuries, thank you.

Of course, and Caesar can make his horse a senator, if that's all there is to it.

I strongly affirm the mon-arche of the bishop, who's charisma veritatis is necessary but hardly sufficient for a true understanding and functioning of ekklesia/church.

Let's forget the issue of the Anaphora for just a minute, and get to the real issue of who wanted or deemed inclusive language necessary.

Please Father, many people would sleep better if this simple question finally got an answer. (Although, I sleep like a log. )

And since it is a problem of social change, it is a very serious theological problem because you have changed the liturgy (and in particular the Creed) to fit the culture rather than proclaim an authentic liturgy (and Creed) to transform the culture. Those who have written the new liturgical texts have not been mindful of St. Paul's words in Romans chapter 12.



The great lack of sacrifice of the laity who have by and large accepted the modern view of human sexuality by their whole-hearted rejection of the Church's teaching on marriage and the transmission of human life, and the desire of certain religious to pave the way for women's ordination, has now found its way into the Creed and Liturgy which has ceased to be "rational worship" by the very fact that words can be dropped from texts and then the these new texts can be shamelessly defended on the basis that no change was intended except to make them more relevant to modern "culture". It is quite clear, however, that modern "culture" does not cultivate much. If one cares to look at the facts regarding marriage, contraception and abortion, "modern culture" is in serious trouble. It will only be transformed by those willing to be baptized into Christ and who will worship in spirit and in truth.

I apologize deeply for the last paragraph of my last post. I did intend to imply that I am a better Christian than anyone else. I just wanted to give a clear example of the point that just because we've done one thing for many centuries, that we cannot make changes now.

Father David said


????

At the very least, we should try to be faithful to the 1996 Liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation. In my own conversation with local Orthodox priests, one, in particular, who may be characterized as "Greek Catholic-friendly", had two major objections to the RDL: (1.) the use of "inclusive" language, and (2.) aloud recitation of the Anaphora (which I had not seen as being problematic). He is an OCA priest, and also prefers the use of "Old English" so as not to be in the position of having to use profane "street language" in the Liturgy ( I agree with that viewpoint). My suspiscion is that I would get the same reaction from most other Eastern Orthodox priests.

Dn. Robert

Father David Petras has posted some comments on the latest version of the Pittsburgh Metropolia's recasting of the Divine Liturgy and the opposition to that recasting. Since he names me (in a reference to my book on the subject), perhaps I should respond.
He begins with the observation that it is now just over a year since this recasting became "the official text in the Metropolia". As it happens, this is a bit modest; the recasting also includes the now-official rubrics and the now-required music.
At once Father David then complains that the recasting "has, of course, been under the gun for a much longer time on the Byzantine Forum". "Under the gun?" Has anyone threatened or advocated any form of violence in the course of the discussion? If so, it has not reached my attention.
As a colloquialism, "under the gun" can mean under pressure, or under attack. But it is by no means true that every posting concerning the recasting of the Divine Liturgy is an attack; several points of view have been expressed. However, since the Forum is almost the only medium that permits dissent from the imposition of this recasting, it is understandable that dissenting views are expressed on the Forum.
Father David then offers some reflection, beginning with the statement that "The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has not collapsed." Surely no one is claiming that it has. Many people � and not only on the Forum � are of the view that the introduction of the recasting has weakened the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA, but that is not an assertion that the Metropolia has collapsed. Since religion in general and liturgy in particular are topics of discussion that are always potentially volatile, there is a need for care in expressing ourselves as peacefully as possible.
There is ample anecdotal evidence of some defections from the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia. No one, to the best of my limited knowledge, has attempted to use scientific-sociological tools to assess the levels of support and dis-satisfaction with the recasting (which is understandable; such analysis and assessment of opinions in the parishes on a scientific basis is quite expensive itself). But there are some data that would be helpful and could be available.
For example: which parishes have experienced a significant increase in funds donated in the Sunday collections? Which parishes have noted, week by week, a significant increase in Church attendance? Contrariwise, which parishes (if any) have experienced a significant decrease in funds donated in the Sunday collections, and which parishes have noted a significant decrease in Church attendance? If the parishes are using the "envelope system", it would not be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory approximation of the data.
Father David writes, "There has been a lot of resentment among the people, but whenever there is liturgical change, there is resentment." There is truth to this. In consequence, one of the considerations to bear in mind in any project of liturgical change is whether the merits of the proposed change(s) will outweigh the unavoidable resentment. Closely connected is the consideration of how change may be introduced as peacefully and non-threateningly as possible. Whether these considerations were carefully reviewed in the matter of the present liturgical recasting is a proper topic for discussion.
Father David claims "Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full." This is a startling assertion; I have read both criticisms of the liturgical reforms of Paul VI and laudatory studies of them. No one denies that attendance at Sunday Mass in a substantial majority of Roman Catholic Churches has diminished quite seriously since Vatican II, and any pastor will confirm that Sunday collection income has not even kept pace with inflation, much less increased.
The difference between supporters of the Roman Catholic liturgical project set in motion by Paul VI and critics of that project is that the supporters reject the suggestion that the fall-off in Church attendance and Sunday collection income is directly related to the liturgical project, but has other causes, while the critics of the Roman Catholic liturgical project regard this assertion as absurd � and point out that had attendance and income increased, the supporters of the liturgical project would not have hesitated to claim the credit.
In any event, it may be possible to find some Roman Catholic venue where Mass attendance is higher than it was, say, fifty years ago � but that would take a good bit of searching.
Father David opines "most resentment has been that we have become too "Orthodox," that �we should just keep our old Greek Catholic Liturgy, hanging on to the Liturgy we knew in our youth in the 70's and 80's." I don't doubt that one could find some people to take that combination of positions, but I have not met them in the past 45 years or so. As for "our youth", I appreciate the compliment but in 1972 I was thirty years old, so perhaps I was already on my third or fourth youth!
"The Forum's cries that we must follow the 1964 translation and only the 1964 translation is definitely a minority position." I'm sure it is. This is certainly not a position of �The Forum�; the Forum itself does not take positions on such questions. This particular proposal is actually not often found on the Forum. And it is a minority position that I do not endorse. Most references to the 1964 text seem to be to the fact of its completeness � the book presents the entire Divine Liturgy, while the 2007 version is drastically abbreviated and makes some wholesale changes. The question is not "should the 1964 translation be improved?" � it is safe to say that a translation made over forty years ago into what was then "modern English" would need improvement by now. The question, rather, is how to go about it. I might have suggested, first of all, seeking to identify specific words or phrases that at least some clergy and faithful found problematic or dated, and circulate these, inviting discussion (but then, Father David appears to want to restrict discussion as closely as possible). This does not, of course, exclude experts in linguistics, in liturgical vernacular, in Church-Slavonic and Greek, and so forth from the discussion.
A next step might well be to discuss the matter with the clergy somewhat intensively, and ask (not require) the clergy to use a revised translation of the texts proper to the clergy, over, say, five or ten years, and then contribute their comments.
When the clergy have gained a sense of ownership of a revised translation, and are content with it, then it is possible to begin to adjust the texts sung by the faithful. This will inevitably present difficulties, since the faithful, if they attend regularly, will have learned much of the 1964/5 text "by heart" and will find a revised translation and a revised musical setting for many of the texts bothersome.
An argument can be made for the thought that until there is an agreed English text at least among a substantial majority of Greek-Catholic and Eastern Orthodox judicatories in the USA (seeking unanimity would be chimerical), one should make only a bare minimum of changes in the texts sung by the faithful, unless a clear movement among the faithful in favor of a new translation emerges.
"What I personally resent is that it has been made to seem that the complete text of the 1964 translation was in general use in our parishes and that the Council of Hierarchs has shortened it." It's not clear why Father David would personally resent this � and it is even less clear that anybody was claiming that the complete text of the 1964/5 translation was in general use in the US Ruthenian parishes. It could be found in use if one knew where to look and did not mind some serious traveling, but I doubt that it could be found in use in every deanery, let alone every parish. On the other hand, it is easy to verify that the Council of Hierarchs has drastically abbreviated that order of service, besides changing the translation.

Father David writes, �Cyril Korolevsky�s 1941 recension � eliminated all latinizations�. Strange. Father Cyril was certainly involved with the 1941 and subsequent Ruthenian editions published by the Holy See, but he was not by any means the sole person so involved, nor is it legitimate to take for granted that the resulting books represent his ideas holus-bolus.
The pressures of World War II and the uncertainty of what would happen on the deaths of Pope Pius XI and Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) required the commission to produce books without delay. Even though Metropolitan Andrew preferred to have a Church-Slavonic translation of the Greek, and even though Father Cyril Korolevsky was well aware of the Kyivan tradition and wished to retain it, the approach chosen was to produce a slightly modified Niconian set of service-books; this could be done without requiring much time.
As for eliminating all Latinizations � this is not an adequate description of the 1941 Divine Liturgy nor of the �Ruthenian� series of books which followed. That alone proves that Father Cyril did not have everything his own way; he was strongly in favor of eliminating all the Latin hybridisms. I shall not here give a list of all the remaining Latin hybridisms in that series of books, but it could certainly be done.

Father David also regrets that those who oppose the recasting of the Divine Liturgy have paid relatively little attention to the Anaphora. There are some good studies in print, by such luminaries as Father Louis Bouyer and Father Alexander Schmemann. But I would think that, like myself, many people are hesitating, reluctant to comment on the Anaphora until our senior colleague, Father Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, publishes his volume on that most crucial subject. Meanwhile, I will suggest that there is nothing in the text of the Anaphoras in use in the Byzantine tradition that requires or mandates chanting or reading the Anaphora aloud.

I will be starting several new threads to better discuss some of the points Father David has raised, hopefully in the next day or so. The following will need to suffice for now.

I agree with Father David that I ought to be more specific. I hereby revise #2 in my previous post to read:

The importance of the Anaphora has been greatly discussed on this Forum. Father David seems to be putting forth the idea that if one does not support the praying of the Anaphora out loud then one is stating that the Anaphora is unimportant. That idea � if it is indeed what Father David is suggesting � is a fallacy.

Asking what the Anaphora means or why it is important does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the Anaphora needs to be prayed aloud. Since the Holy Doors are closed at this point one might reasonably conclude that something incredibly holy is going on. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) addresses this awesome point in the Divine Liturgy when he speaks about the �possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. � Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice � the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.� [�Spirit of the Liturgy", pp. 214-216]

But the larger point here is that Father David is not justifying his desire for a mandate with a body of evidence from the custom in the Latin Church which he is imitating. Those who seek change are the ones responsible for making the case for change. Father David has failed, and has not offered any demonstrable evidence that the custom has produced real fruit in the Latin Church. Indeed, many very intelligent Roman Catholic liturgical theologians speak of the �crisis� this custom has caused because it has reduced something that is intimate and holy to just words that a large number of people tune out. Pope Benedict XVI is reported to personally be praying the Anaphora prayers quietly, and has even suggested that parishes might return to praying these prayers in Latin. [And while the news reports of this are not specific it is clear that he is seeking to transform the ordinariness to the point of being tuned out of the current custom in the Latin Church to one which exudes holiness.] Again, the bishops should not be imitating this custom in the Latin Church until there is a common, organic development across all Byzantine Churches and they act together.

This sounds like a matter of education. One does not reform the Divine Liturgy to remedy the poor education of a small number of priests.

The quotes from Scripture and the Divine Liturgy do not support a perceived need to mandate that these prayers be prayed aloud. It is in the eating and drinking that we �proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.� This is true whether the priest prays the Anaphora quietly according to the received custom or aloud according to Father David�s personal desires for Liturgy.

Father David�s arguments always wind up with calls to obedience. I am confident that when the appeals are done the Holy Father will affirm the right of the Ruthenian priests to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the official 1942 texts and rubrics and received custom normative to the Ruthenian recension (along with the other books normative for our recension, each completely and correctly translated into English).

The question did not arise across the entire Church. It seems only to have arisen amongst a small number of liturgists in the Latin Church � reforms the current Holy Father is now trying to repair with the �reform of the reform�. But an appeal to the vernacular in the latter part of the 20th century does not explain the fact that the anaphora fell quiet before the language of worship ceased to be the vernacular. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states: �It is no accident that in Jerusalem, for a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.� (Also from �Spirit of the Liturgy) Father David�s point simply does not hold up here.

In the Liturgical Instruction (#21) we read: "In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." Asking the individual Eastern Catholic Churches to work together both with one another and with the parallel Orthodox Church to enact change is hardly �powerless�.

But Father David has spoken repeatedly about the need of the Ruthenian Church to act independently because of the �spiritual welfare of its people�. Can Father David finally give us some specifics here? Just exactly what are the special needs of the Ruthenian Catholic peoples in America that the official 1942 Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy cannot meet? Could he please list them, and discuss why the official 1942 DL cannot possibly meet them, and delineate specifically why Ruthenians have this need and why those in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, the OCA, the Greeks and the Antiochians do not have these same needs (most of these jurisdictions � and especially the UGCC � are working towards liturgical renewal, with the �received� and �official� versions being the standard to work towards).

The Ruthenian Church is in no position to reform anything regarding Liturgy because it is not � as a Church � familiar with its own liturgical tradition. It has been generations since we have been formed by the fullness of our own liturgical tradition. The Liturgical Instruction speaks well to this:

The Instruction is very specific. Rediscovery comes through restoration of officially forms (for us the 1942 Liturgicon and the other official books normative to the Ruthenian recension). This rediscovery / restoration of official forms allows a Church to be formed by its own liturgical tradition. This rediscovery / restoration is not part of revision and not subordinate to revision (updating). The Five Year Plan I summarized in an earlier post is heedful of all the requirements of the Liturgical Instruction and, if followed carefully, would not harm souls (as has the implementation of the RDL).

The Liturgical Instruction continues in Section 18:
It seems pretty clear that a restoration of authentic and wholesome monasticism in the Ruthenian Church (and the Byzantine Churches in general) is vitally necessary to the larger restoration and formation that must occur before even thinking of revising the Liturgy (working, of course, together with other Byzantines). The Liturgical Instruction gives great wisdom in its directives to the Eastern Catholic Church and it is a real shame that the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs has rejected the Liturgical Instruction.

The correct path forward for the Ruthenian Catholic Church is to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy, to finally promulgate the Ruthenian recension, and to take a decade or so to pastorally bring most parishes into conformance (first with the Divine Liturgy then with the other Divine Services such as Vespers and Matins). Then it can form our Churches anew so that future generations can speak to the idea of reform, a reform that might or might not be needed (but if it is will be accomplished working together both with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and other Byzantines (Catholics and Orthodox)).

First, no apology is necessary as it is clear it was a matter of a bad typo.

Second, no one has suggested that changes cannot ever be made. I am not sure why Father David continues to misstate this. The point is that all change is to be accomplished according to the principles given by the Liturgical Instruction, which if followed manifest "the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." (#21) Organic development by definition precludes mandates.

Reading John�s remarks, I can only say that I am diametrically, completely, absolutely and totally in disagreement with everything that he has said or implied.

To wit:
John said: �Asking what the Anaphora means or why it is important does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the Anaphora needs to be prayed aloud. �

Of course, it doesn�t hurt either. Being a member of the visible Church is not necessary for salvation, but it does help.

John said:
�Those who seek change are the ones responsible for making the case for change. Father David has failed, and has not offered any demonstrable evidence that the custom has produced real fruit in the Latin Church.�

The problem is that he does not designate what �real fruit� is. Ir seems you can make it whatever you want. Perhaps by �real fruit,� he means that which has not been achieved by an audible anaphora. (Circular definition) However, the Church has always had saints and sinners. I think people today are becoming more aware of what Christianity is and asks of us.
John said:
�It is in the eating and drinking that we �proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.�

Very, very superficial theology here! In the eating and drinking of what??? In the eating and drinking of the bread and the cup. In the eating and drinking of any bread and cup??? No, in the eating and drinking of the bread and cup over which thanks has been given. In other words, the bread and the cup that have become the body and blood of our Lord through the praying of the anaphora.

John said:
�Father David�s arguments always wind up with calls to obedience.�

What, I should always end with a call to disobedience??? Give me a break. I think obedience is proper here because the bishops have approved an organic development that has been in process for many decades now. Note the following post, where John says: �Organic development by definition precludes mandates.� Not absolutely, and certainly not �by definition.� Very bad theology here. I think we are at a point were this step can be taken.

�The question did not arise across the entire Church. It seems only to have arisen amongst a small number of liturgists in the Latin Church.�

Simply not true. The great majority of liturgical theologians East and West know that the audible anaphora is the ideal, though they may not agree on how to implement it.

John keeps on claiming:

�It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence.�

The structure of Syrian anaphoras has developed differently than the Byzantine, and include private strophes.

�Just exactly what are the special needs of the Ruthenian Catholic peoples in America that the official 1942 Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy cannot meet? Could he please list them, and discuss why the official 1942 DL cannot possibly meet them, and delineate specifically why Ruthenians have this need and why those in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, the OCA, the Greeks and the Antiochians do not have these same needs (most of these jurisdictions.�

The Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians, Russians, OCA, Greeks and Antiocheans have similar needs and would all benefit from the audible anaphora.

John said:
�The Ruthenian Church is in no position to reform anything regarding Liturgy because it is not � as a Church � familiar with its own liturgical tradition. �

I do not share this low opinion of our church. We were mature enough to be leaders in going into the vernacular and we can lead in the anaphora also.

John said:
�It seems pretty clear that a restoration of authentic and wholesome monasticism in the Ruthenian Church (and the Byzantine Churches in general) is vitally necessary.�

Finally, a point on which we can agree. However, monasticism has had a rough road in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Individual charismatic leaders are necessary, but there has been too much dependence on individuals. Sadly, the monaastics often do not have an appreciation of the parochial character of liturgy. Do not, however, under any conditions, interpret this as a de-emphasis on the divine praises. I think Vespers and Matins should be restored in parishes.

John said:
� ... to take a decade or so to pastorally bring most parishes into conformance (first with the Divine Liturgy then with the other Divine Services such as Vespers and Matins).�

By mandate, do you mean? The reality is that much of what we are doing now is restoration, and should have been done decades ago.

Just a couple of short observations on Father Sergius� post:

Fr. Sergius said:
�I might have suggested, first of all, seeking to identify specific words or phrases that at least some clergy and faithful found problematic or dated, and circulate these, inviting discussion (but then, Father David appears to want to restrict discussion as closely as possible).�

This is putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that?

Fr. Sergius said:
�But I would think that, like myself, many people are hesitating, reluctant to comment on the Anaphora until our senior colleague, Father Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, publishes his volume on that most crucial subject.�

But we do know what he said about the audible anaphora. In response to the question, �Should the anaphora be said aloud,� he responded: �Of course it should; no question about it.� (Through Their Own Eyes, p. 166)

Father David,

my posting on anything that you've written in this thread would be just going in circles from past posts and pretty much an exercise in futility.

The remaining questions I have is why doesn't the BCA allow the 1965 translation and full liturgy in just one church for example in Cleveland(and few other areas in other Eparchies). Let's see what happens to attendance, practice, fasting, financial giving (please don't anyone on the forum try to tell me this doesn't matter). Why would a church in such decline not be willing to take a chance. For example, let Holy Ghost celebrate it. 5-10 people show up on a Sunday, could it really get that worse?

We've seen what happens when revising and chopping up is implemented, is it the fear that revising and chopping up will be shown to be an utter failure that the full liturgy is forbidden?

Monomakh

Who wanted or deemed inclusive language necessary? Why does my question go unanswered?

Fr. Serge,

To reiterate your points above, every parish that I have attended (at least 5-6 parishes) in Western Pennsylvania all have lower numbers since June 29, 2007. I have yet to see any parish gains. Is the RDL and the RDL new music the cause? From what I have witnessed personally, I would make the hypothesis and say yes, it is due to the the promulgation of the RDL.

Ung

Father David writes:



Father David has quoted me accurately, and then fails to understand a quite simple construction. To say or write that someone "appears to want" something is not to put words into anyone's mouth. However, there have certainly been severe restrictions on discussions of this entire topic, everywhere except on the Forum (clergy gatherings have been told point-blank that the only part of the topic they are to discuss is the implementation of the recasting, not its merits or lack thereof). I have seen nothing to indicate that Father David opposes this muzzling, and his comments on the postings on the Forum indicate with sufficient clarity that he would prefer that this unique medium which permits discussion of the recasting did not exist.

As to why the supporters of the recasting are grimly determined to prevent any parish from using the complete Liturgy, the motive is the same as the motive for refusing for decades to allow Mass in various dioceses according to the 1962 Missal - competition can reveal that the innovation is expensively robed in the Emperor's new clothes.

Fr. Serge (please note the correct spelling of my name in English)

Again, the newly mandated custom of praying the Anaphora aloud imitates the current custom in the Latin Church. There is no empirical evidence that suggests the Latin Church has benefited from this custom. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI suggests that the Latin Church has not been enriched by the custom and a number of other highly respected liturgists have stated that the custom has caused a �crisis� in the Anaphora. It only makes sense for Byzantines to allow liberty rather then to imitate with mandate a custom the Latins are having problems with.

Perhaps Father David could offer us a definition of real fruit, and show examples of this fruit in the Latin Church? Given that many very intelligent and well-respected liturgical theologians in the Latin Church (including the current pope) believe that the custom has caused a �crisis� in their Church I am sure they will be interested.

I am not sure of the point Father David is making here. Is he suggesting that for the past 1,500+ years the Church has not known what they have been eating and drinking in the Eucharist?

My point is that Father David calls for obedience because he cannot advocate his position on the basis of widespread organic development. It is curious that he earlier stated that he would die for this custom. If the Council of Hierarchs had mandated that the Anaphora be taken quietly according to the received custom (something no one has advocated) would he really stand in disobedience until death? He is calling for obedience while at the same time suggesting that he would stand in disobedience if he did not get his mandate for reform? I was pointing out the illogic of his position the way he stated it.

As far as organic development, Father David is incorrect. The custom has not developed organically across the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). In the Liturgical Instruction (#21) we see the directive: �In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.� Mandating a custom that has not developed organically in the Orthodox Church increases the separation between us. It is wrong, plain and simple. I do not understand how or why anyone would reject this directive given in the Liturgical Instruction. Liberty surely serves better and Father David has offered no theological evidence that a priest who would choose to follow the received custom is harming the Church, and the liturgical unity we share with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

I disagree. It is certainly true amongst those who won the day in the implementing the Vatican II reforms in the Mass of the Latin Church. It is not generally true now, where even many priests are rejecting the idea of having to perform the Anaphora rather than pray it.

But the larger point is that from the earliest times the custom of praying the Anaphoras quietly developed organically. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is correct when he states that to consider it all an accident is far too easy.

I can respect that Father David would believe that they would benefit from the custom. I will note again that the mandate he sought and won violates the Liturgical Instruction, which calls us to keep united in liturgical matters. He should state his case and allow the custom to develop organically. But it seems very clear that Father David is not willing to wait for organic development. Is it because it might take too long, or because liberty for organic development might not lead to his desired outcome?

But Father David has side-stepped the question once again. He states that he believes that all Byzantines would benefit. He offers no reason whatsoever why the official 1942 Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. Having a personal opinion that they might benefit from a changed form is not reason enough to prohibit the official form. Especially when the Liturgical Instruction calls for renewal to the official forms before updating them, and updating only together with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). Father David needs to explain each change to the official 1942 Slavonic Liturgicon and explain why the fully and official form and text (given in English) could not possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholics and needed to be prohibited.

To state that we are not familiar enough with what is ours is not to have a low opinion of our Church! We have an incredibly wonderful resource in the official Ruthenian recension that can lead to a spiritual renascence of our Church. It is those who have sought and obtained a prohibition on the celebration of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy it its full and complete form who are embarrassed of who we are as well as of our own official form of the Byzantine Liturgy.

I agree that monasticism has had a rough road in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But until there is a fully formed and thriving monasticism in the Church monastics will not be ready to speak to issues of liturgical change, and liturgical change can not be accomplished without them just as it cannot be accomplished without working together across the entire Byzantine Church.

No. No mandates. Mandates do not work.

The only way to raise the level of celebration is by example, education, and encouragement. I have seen it work and we know the official forms do work when they are tried. I know people who have driven past several of our parishes to worship at one that celebrated the full and official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. I have seen them return to their local parishes and encourage their priest to raise the celebration of the Liturgy. It takes time, but when people see an example of a full and vibrant Divine Liturgy they want it in their own parish. We now it is possible with the full and official forms. We know the crisis that the RDL has created. The experiment of the RDL needs to be abandoned, and quickly.

The reality is that the RDL is not a restoration to the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy but a revision of the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. The reform itself states that the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and recension are lacking and were a mistake, and that Ruthenians have nothing of value unless it is reformed. What a message for the bishops to give to the people!

The way forward is clear. The Council of Hierarchs needs to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and promulgate the official 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and other liturgical books) as normative for the Church in America. Then they need to publish new editions of the 1964 Chrysostom and 1976 Basil Liturgicons that are complete and whole, omitting nothing and adding nothing from the official editions (correcting only what is wrong using the Slavonic original as the normative text, translating literally and accurately while respecting what is memorized). Then move forward with the other liturgical books. Through example, education and encouragement take a decade or so to slowly lift the celebration of the Liturgy in the parishes closer and closer to the official standard.

I believe St. Paul in this expression (1Cor. 11:26), which must be understood in context (1Cor. 11:23-26), is summing up by means of the culminating event (eating and drinking) the totality of the sacred tradition that he is handing on, which we know as the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy.

Whatever liturgical scholars may theorize about what comprises the essential elements of liturgy, concerning the Divine Liturgy (in all its various ritual forms) I believe the witness of scripture and holy tradition, and especially the ubiquitous witness of the synoptic Gospels whenever Jesus touches bread*, is fourfold in that:

1. He takes [lambano] (bread/loaf, artos)
2. He blesses [eulogeo] or gives thanks [eucharisteo]
3. He breaks [klao] (bread)
4. He gives [didomi] (to His disciples)

On this basis, each of these is essential and no one should be deemed more important; there is more to what has been handed on than just �the praying of the anaphora,� which limited understanding can itself betray a �superficial theology.�

I am not speaking here against the audible Anaphora, only that it be understood in relation to the total integrity of the essentials, what constitutes the ritual, all the elements of the liturgical event. Consider 2-blessing/thanks even if the Anaphora is prayer mysticos/silently:

P: Let us give thanks.... L:It is proper and just ... P:Take eat...drink.... Offering You.... L: We praise You, we bless You, we thank You...

Who would insist that we have not blessed and given thanks? Even these audible excerpts alone convey that ALL are blessing and giving thanks. I think that item 1-taking is probably less appreciated by most and 3-breaking is mostly obscured from the people (and unfortunately glossed over by some priests), but done properly, though the words said are usually covered by the singing of �One is holy...� and the action obscured from the people's seeing, it is no less efficacious.

I have been to Roman rite services where all is said or certainly a whole lot is said � very verbose sometimes, dominated it can seem by the proliferation and rationalization of the words to their overwhelming or even being a detriment to their mystical content. And given a preponderance of even meaningful words that are nonetheless an overly-rationalized wordiness, versus the flow, dialog, singing and balanced participation of all in an Anaphora where not every word is heard by all, my judgment is for the greater effectiveness, as ritual expression, of the latter.

So, are the �great majority of liturgical theologians East and West [who] know that the audible anaphora is the ideal� getting the ritual balance right or instead are they conditioned by their scholarship (and there is a pack or band-wagon mentality among the experts in various fields) to amplifying and insisting on a theoretical �ideal� to the disruption of the whole?

Putting it another way, if it's all in hearing the words, then why only the Anaphora. Even the RDL has, at 3-breaking:


Beautiful and meaningful words and actions that are largely unseen and unheard, yet no need or insistence here for a change to must see, must hear, or what's the sense if we can't hear and see.


-----------------------------
*
1.) Feed 5k: Mt 14:13-21, Mk 6:32-44, Lk 9.10b-17, (Jn 6:1-15).
2.) Feed 4k: Mt 15:32-39, Mk 8:1-10.
3.) Pasch Mt 26:26-29, Mk 14:22-25, Lk 22:15-20, (Jn 6:51-58, 1Cor 11:23-25).
4.) Emmaus Lk 24:13-35 (Mk 16:12-13).

John,

1) Actually the Latin Church did not mandate that the Anaphora be taken aloud after Vatican II. The 1985 US English edition of the Roman Missal, based on the 74 Editio Typica, simply states: "In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice. In sung Massess he may sing those parts of the eucharistic prayer which may be sung in concelebrated Mass." I am not aware the 02 Editio Typica says anything different. The Latin Church has allowed the freedom you argue for and the audible Anaphora has become the custom of the Latin Church with no mandate. It appears the Holy Spirit has spoken, unless you want to argue the Holy Spirit says one thing to the Latin Church and another to the Byzantine Church.

2) You recurring presentation of the "crisis" the audible Anaphora has caused in the Latin Church is grossly over-simplified. Nowhere do I read the Holy Father stating that the audible Anaphora is responsible for the crisis in the Latin Church. Rather the audible Anaphora, the turning around of the altar, the multiplication of Anaphorae in the Latin Church, and the unlawful practice of priests ad libbing the Anaphora, in whole or in part, because of the preceding three are the cause of the crisis. One notes the Holy Father continues to recite the Anaphora audibly in public Masses.

3) That the Anaphora is not recited audibly across the board in Byzantine Churches is true. It also remains true that the majority of Byzantine Churches continue to celebrate in languages not readily intelligible to their faihtful, Koine Greek and Old Slavonic. I would be curious to know the correlation between Liturgy in modern venacular and the tendency to take the Anaphora and other prayers audibly. My bet would be those that celbrate in modern venacular tend to take the pryaers aloud, as evidenced by OCA disquiet over the mandate in the new Liturgicon to take thing silently. As Fr David points out if you don't understand the language of a prayer it might as well be said silently. It also has the added effect of speeding up the Liturgy, for this (along with clericalism) is why the Anaphora and Litany-ending prayers became silent in the Byzantine Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

1) Yes, you are correct. Vatican II did not mandate the praying of the Anaphora aloud in the Latin Church. It came in the aftermath. My post should have been more specific.

2) See �The Spirit of the Liturgy� by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) pages 214 & 215. Cardinal Ratzinger references: �[t]he German liturgists have explicitly sttes that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. � The liturgists have suggested all kind of remedies�. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.�

My point here is that very well respected liturgists in the Latin Church have identified the custom as problematic. The Council of Hierarchs should not have issued a mandate when liberty better serves.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Holy Father recites the Anaphora aloud at his public Masses. That shows respect for the normative Liturgy of the Latin Church. It does not necessarily show support for every rubric, as we can see in his writings.

And yes, many liturgists now point to all of the rubrics of the Anaphora as problematic (with the facing the people the being the worst problem). But we can see that the current Holy Father has indeed spoken to the problem with the aloud praying of the Anaphora.

3) The points you raise are all interesting and some could be valid. None support the idea of mandate. Liberty to allow the custom to develop organically is the best way forward. Given the problems some very intelligent Roman Catholic theologians have identified with the current aloud praying of the Anaphora and the fact that the custom has not developed organically across Orthodoxy the only logical position here is liberty.

Also, do you have any evidence that the Anaphora fell quiet because it was not understood? I would appreciate being able to read it. The falling quiet of the Anaphora appears to have happened while the liturgical language was still close to the vernacular. I�ve not seen evidence that it was done to speed up the Liturgy or because the priest and / or people no longer understood the words. Father Taft seems to say no one knows for sure. Father David has said in these discussions that he does not know. The current Holy Father states that thinking it is all a result of such misunderstandings is just too easy.

In the end liberty serves best. Trust the Holy Spirit to lead.

John

But is that not the case? As I read this, "the Latin Church did not mandate that the Anaphora be taken aloud" and the RDL (Byzantine Church) does -- indeed a difference and the very issue.

No, you are incorrect. There is no mandate. The Roman Missal, in force since 1970 states: "In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice. In sung Massess he may sing those parts of the eucharistic prayer which may be sung in concelebrated Mass."


http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/shimchick_saying_amen.htm

In 1905, A. P. Golubstsov listed some of the reasons why the prayers ceased to be read publicly:

1.In an effort to reduce the growing length of the liturgy, the prayers were read silently by the priest as the deacon was intoning the petitions.
2. The secret reading became incorporated into the discplina arcana ("secret discpline") whereby it was felt that those who were "uninitiated" were unable to hear about the mysteries of the faith or of worship. This encouraged the previously mentioned division between the clergy and laity.
3. It was closely related to the period when the practice of frequent communion ceased.[6]

6. "The Reasons for and the Dates of Replacing the Audible Recitation of Liturgical Prayers with Secret Recitation," Bogoslovskiy Vestnik, Sept., 1905. Translated by A. Smirensky. Available at: jacwell.org (Supplements)

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/reasons_and_dates.htm

Well either our Hierachs are only mandating what the Holy Spirit has led the Latin Church to do or John must concede this matter does not involve the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and some liturgical decisions are just that, decisions made by Hierarchs that may or may not be good practice and may or may not become entrenched. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church but I don't think He dictates liturgical rubrics.

here's another response from Fr Robert Taft, SJ:

Was it traditional in the ancient Church for liturgical prayers to be recited aloud? [kiev-orthodox.org]

Fr. Taft himself concedes that all of the written manuscripts extant are after the failure of the Justinian mandate. We will never know exactly what was taken aloud and what was not.

Again, I would not be so quick to dismiss the action of the Holy Spirit over what was arguably the greatest evangelical explosion of the Byzantine faith in the Balkans, Romania and finally Rus'. All entirely within the period after the failure of the Justinian mandate. But a very real and lasting evangelical movement. Surely it would seem the Holy Spirit would have some role in such large-scale conversions to Christianity.

I can hardly see any such evangelical eruption these days - certainly not in the last 12+ months. And no matter how passionate the desire for revision, one cannot deny history.
FDRLB

Indeed the Holy Spirit is not found in mandated rubrics, but in still small voices:

I do not presume to speak for the Holy Spirit or John and only point out, again, that the question presented is to mandate or not to mandate (the audible Anaphora). That the RDL so mandates is not disputed. As for the Latins:


and


Again, Byzantine/RDL mandates, Latin "did not mandate" and "no mandate" as quoted above. That Byzantines, given our liturgical tradition, may choose a different resolution than the Latins is entirely possible and proper. To insist that we must follow in the steps of the Latins is to deny us the very option they deemed proper to give themselves; and that "our Hierachs are only mandating what the Holy Spirit has led the Latin Church to do" -- well, haven't we had enough of that?

Again, I don't presume to speak for the Holy Spirit. The real question is why have the rubrics changed in the RDL relative to the Recension; and if the issue isn't important enough to be considered and answered, then why the need to change them in the first place?

I had believed also that there was no mandate. Somewhere in these discussions Father Deacon John Montalvo provided a reference to show that it is now required in the Latin Rite Novus Ordo. Perhaps Father John will post the reference again?

Thank you for the other references. I will research them.

I will note, however, that even if true they do not justify a mandate to take the Anaphora prayers aloud. The two points I raised (the issue that many intelligent Latins are having with the custom and the requirement for unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)) are more then enough justification not to issue a mandate but to allow liberty for the Spirit to work.

Father David has not provided even one bit of evidence that demonstrates why the official Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. He has treated his personal desires for Liturgy as infallible, against which the received tradition used by all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) must defend itself to his satisfaction.

Wha? How dare you! I have never said such a thing. How very rude.

My Church uses a very old translation of the Divine Liturgy--very reverent. I have seen no new Liturgies being promulgated or forced down the people's throats. All I see here is copy and pasting from a gossip website and some insults directed at what I seem to believe.

Sheesh!

I agree with this.

In my latest posts, I think I made the correct decision in distancing myself from any of John�s opinions.

However, I do regret posting at all. It has been noted that I�m the only member of the Liturgy Commission that posts here, and after John�s lengthy responses, I can understand why. I�ve tried to give some perspective to what we are doing, and I hope that some reading it have profited from it. Fr. Keleher has pointed out that this is the only Forum where people can complain about the Liturgy, and it has become basically a site for trashing the Divine Liturgy as now celebrated in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The Internet, which has done so much to advance information, is also a privileged medium for activity of this kind. However, I do not think most of the criticism has been constructive.

Further posting at this time would only stretch out responses to almost novella length to attempt to refute in detail anything that I might say to defend the Liturgy. I will say this - the audible anaphora is the most important issue. It unfolds for the people the Paschal Mystery, which Christian faith is all about. John�s response, �Father David has not provided even one bit of evidence that demonstrates why the official Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. He has treated his personal desires for Liturgy as infallible, against which the received tradition used by all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) must defend itself to his satisfaction,� I regard as completely untrue and simply a personal rant against me in a crusade to say that only the 1942 Recension is Christian truth. I believe he is doing this in order to defend the particular right of a priest to follow the 1942 recension. Therefore, I will only point out one thing, a statement to me that is incomprehensible. John said, �The Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America currently prohibits the celebration of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the official and normative form that is �universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition.�� While it is true that the 1942 recension is in conformity with apostolic tradition, so is the 2007 English translation. However, anything that is done in 1942 cannot "be" the �universally accepted and uninterrupted apostolic tradition.� �Uninterrupted apostolic tradition� is, rather, the deposit of faith of the Christian Church. To deviate from it is schism. Perhaps this opinion comes from, if my memory serves me right, from the idea once expressed that the 1942 recension is equivalent to a text inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I can�t fix the reference.

On a more academic note, to Deacon Lance: Golubtsov�s article, published in 1905, was written during the preparations for the Synod of 1917, which deserves more study. The reasons he gives for the silent anaphora are speculative, an attempt to try to make sense of why such an important part of the Liturgy had become silently recited. One reason that he did not consider, but maybe should have, in view of calls, at that time, to translate the Liturgy into contemporary Russian, was the language shift that had occurred, certainly by the time of Justinian, that would have made ancient prayers difficult for the average Greek speaker to understand.

Etnick--my apologies if my bringing up the discussion of the audible recitation of the Anaphora in the OCA from OCANEWS.org seems to be an attack on what you believe. That was not my intention. I was only trying to show, based on reaction that OCA clergy and laity were having to the new liturgical books recently printed by the central administration of the OCA, that the audible recitation of this prayer has to not be "unknown" or at least done aloud in portions of the OCA. Thereby showing that the Ruthenian church is not the only church taking the Anaphora aloud. Guess it's a hot button topic everywhere. Again, my apologies.

John K

First of all John, I am Recluse--not Etnick. Secondly, nothing you post is a threat or an attack to me in any form (I am only disturbed when people attribute some type of belief or thought process to me that is not accurate). I do not pay much attention to gossip websites that bash the Metropolitan for much of their discourse.
Thirdly,I have heard of Orthodox Churches taking the Anaphora aloud--but it seems to be a minority practice. It is not a big issue with me--however I prefer the silent prayers.

My biggest problem with the RDL, (and it is well known here), is the gender neutralization.

But the fact that some people are concerned by "having the option" for an audible anaphora is reassuring to me that organic development will be respected.

Peace
R

Wow! I see mostly well thought out posts about issues which concern devout Byzantine Catholic Christians regarding their beloved Divine Liturgy---and you see it as a trashing. We must be reading two different forums!

Are you blaming the internet?
I think it has been constructive and enlightening.
I think most of the people here are simply asking for straight forward answers to straight forward questions without any evasion tactics.
Can a Mystery be explained,defined, and unfolded simply by mandating audible prayers?