www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Does the RDL reveal a lack of hope?

"Oooh...can I make that phrase my own? I like it."

I hold copyright, I think. But I'll cede it to you if you let me keep "Elkoism with a human face".

---

Quelle dommage! Then why not just shut it all down and merge it into the UGCC now? It just doesn't make sense, Stuart. If the business is liquidated and the doors are closing in 5 minutes, why all the fuss with a new Liturgy.

If there is not a future for the BCC, why is Parma holding a 40th Anniversary celebration this summer?

And why hasn't Rome stepped in? Surely they know something is wrong?

It does not compute.

"Then why not just shut it all down and merge it into the UGCC now? "

It would make sense, and I actually had the temerity to suggest it to my priest once. Amazing the lengths to which the Rusyn will go to maintain their ecclesial independence, even though, by all rights, the Carpatho-Rusyn Church should be an autonomous metropolitan province under the Patriarchate of Kyiv. And, if they thought about it rationally, the Ruthenians would see the benefits of this arrangement. But, big fish in a small pond syndrome.

"If there is not a future for the BCC, why is Parma holding a 40th Anniversary celebration this summer?"

How old is General Motors?

"And why hasn't Rome stepped in? Surely they know something is wrong?"

Rome wants us to grow up and act like adults. That won't happen if they keep bailing us out. Kind of like the way in which GM will never implement the reforms it needs as long as it knows Uncle Sugar will keep pulling its chestnuts out of the fire. Maybe Rome is willing to see the Ruthenian Church go Chapter 11, because, let's face it, we're not "too big to fail".

Some of us recommended that years ago (I did when I started on this Forum six years ago). The most developed hierarchal structure of any Eastern Church is, of course, a patriarchate with a functioning Synod.

The BCCA seems to be embarking on a new modern American particularity even farther removed from its ecclesial roots. My term at the beginning of the RDL process (actually even back to the 1984 proto-RDL Parma liturgikon promulgated by Bishop +Andrew and written by Fr. David) was "neolatinization".

I do not think Rome will intervene in the RDL affair. It is seen as far lower priority given much bigger-profile problems in Rome (SSPX, Fr. Maciel, and a myriad of other things just involving the Latin Church), and it is seen by Rome as an internal affair of a small Church sui iuris.

After Rome writing several documents during and after Vatican II stating the Eastern Churches should be taking care of more things themselves, I simply do not see any quick intervention, or likely any intervention at all.

Isolated in their ivory towers?

Every person involved in the RDL, from the bishops to the members of the liturgical commission, have been actively engaged in the ministry of our Church. These men are not professionals engaged in purely academic pursuits. They are the pastors of our parish communities. They are catechists, counselors, and spiritual directors. They are engaged in the formation of our future clergy. My own pastor has been and is still currently a member of the liturgical commission. Even our eparchs come from the ranks of the presbyterate and have served parish communities. Two men I have been privileged to address as, "Your Grace," Bishop +George (Kuzma),of blessed memory, and Bishop Gerald (Dino), have served or serve as the episcopal chair of the liturgical commission. These men, as the Eparch of Van Nuys, have not been "isolated in their ivory towers," nor have they sought to impress anyone.

So, just who are these authors that are "isolated in their ivory towers"? One may not agree with the RDL, but to accuse the authors of being "isolated in their ivory towers" at best reflects an ignorance of the men who serve our Church or an ignorance of the meaning of the term, "ivory tower". At worst, this statement is a conscious effort to engage in calumny.

Rome wanted to merge the Pittsburgh Exarchate into the Ukrainian Catholic church sixty ago. It had to be an almost done deal because Bishop Ivancho fled to Rome to plead the case of keeping them separate. He won.

"Some of us recommended that years ago (I did when I started on this Forum six years ago). The most developed hierarchal structure of any Eastern Church is, of course, a patriarchate with a functioning Synod."

If you will remember, I was blacklisted from this site for going one further, and suggesting that all the Eastern Catholic seminaries be closed down and we send our candidates either to Holy Cross or St. Vladimir's.

To Deacon John:

Who were the primary authors? Why were the driving forces behind the change? What were their qualifications? How can you stand behind what they did?

By their fruits shall ye know them. The failure of the hierarchy to directly address the concerns of the faithful, both before and after promulgation of the RDL, points to their isolation. Their failure to recognize the catastrophe unfolding in the Metropolia speaks to their lack of moral courage.

Deacon John,

The criticism is not wholly without truth. I think the individual in the ivory tower who approved of the RDL and wanted even more drastic changes ends his name with the initials, S.J.

Part of the dynamic of the RDL is the tension that often exists in modern times between Bishop and scholar. S.J. is, of course, quite the scholar. Unfortunately he holds some opinions that don't square well with the magisterium. So when confronted with the opinions of S.J., the worlds preminent scholar on things Byzantine (and I note that the timing of the approval of the RDL at the Oriental Congregation and the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam are remarkable), it appears that the Bishops may have been somewhat intimidated by him.

Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) hit the nail on the lead in his book review in 2004:



http://www.adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.html

Perhaps rhetorical questions, but the composition of the IELC is a matter of public record, and has been posted on the forum, link.

My question in that post was about accountability and responsibility, citing one prominent issue:




I used the issue of "inclusivity" as an example, inquiring about the "driving force behind the change." That issue is openly acknowledged (in the Metropolia's catechetical DVD on the RDL) as something desired and intended. It has asserted a profound impact on the liturgy, is very controversial, and yet no one seems to have proposed it, to take responsibility for it or is willing to justify or defend it with facts, data and convincing arguments.


Too sad if true. A current thread attempts to explore the issue and evaluate the process: Hear the other side

This present thread topic asks "Does the RDL reveal a lack of hope?" That must be put in the context of the facts, proper judgment and a correct protocol. The protocol appears to have been followed and the documentation is in order although it has not been made public as noted several times on this forum. Should/did/does the protocol include hearing the other side and addressing it?

The Challenger launch was, for sure, full of hope, but was shown in retrospect to have been the disaster it was because of ignored facts, sidestepping protocol, and faulty judgment.

"Perhaps rhetorical questions, but the composition of the IELC is a matter of public record, and has been posted on the forum, link."

That wasn't quite the question I asked. Within every large committee or commission, there may be many members, but only a handful do the majority of the work, and of those, perhaps just two or three actually take control of the process. Those of us who have worked in that kind of environment know the dynamic. It is quite clear that the liturgical reform took the direction it did, and the RDL has the form that it does, because of the initiative of just a few people. The rest were along for the ride.

"That issue is openly acknowledged (in the Metropolia's catechetical DVD on the RDL) as something desired and intended, asserting a profound impact on the liturgy, very controversial, and yet no one seems to have proposed it, to take responsibility for it or is willing to justify or defend it with facts, data and convincing arguments."

Those who know the participants can point the finger of responsibility with a high degree of confidence, based on that persons own writings before, during and after the promulgation of the RDL. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Why this person would not want to admit his role and accept responsibility is also obvious in light of the results of his initiative.

"This present thread topic asks "Does the RDL reveal a lack of hope?" That must be put in the context of the facts, proper judgment and a correct protocol. The protocol appears to have been followed and the documentation is in order although it has not been made public as noted several times on this forum. Should/did/does the protocol include hearing the other side and addressing it?"

Those of us who work in Washington are quite familiar with a bureaucratic strategy called "malicious compliance"--a form of institutional passive aggression. When asked to do something with which it disagrees, the bureaucracy chooses a path of compliance that causes the most damage and inconvenience to everybody else. For example, when the Park Service is asked to cut its budget by 1%, it announces that the Washington Monument will be closed to tourists because of "budget cuts". "There, we did what you wanted", the bureaucrats say. "What? That's not what you meant? You should have been more specific".

I'm not saying this applies to the RDL as a conscious conspiracy of clerics, but it sure does look like it.

IM,

To one who may be recently registering on the Forum he may be of the opinion that the BCC was flourishing before the RDL. We know that is not true (this is unfortunately happening in many Eastern and Western Churches). If the Ruthenian rescension was made mandatory in every parish do you honestly believe that people would flock to the Church? You always will have a minority who will be upset with the music, no matter which version is used.

I don't believe the RDL was the product of any ONE man. With the progression through different layers of approval it surely must have been a composite, so while a consensus approval was accomplished it's doubtful that any one person considered it "perfect."

Is our virtue of Hope so shallow that we are disillusioned over challenged wording? If it is then perhaps our Faith is overreliant upon the Divine Liturgy and understates living "the Way, the Truth and the Life."

The orthodox (small "o") wing of the BCC insisted for the end of kneeling, removal of Holy Water fonts, removal of Stations, "approved" iconostases, and various other issues. We have moved beyond this and yet we STILL are ashamed of our Church and see other Eastern Churches as superior.

Please forgive me for oversimplifying, but will our people ever be happy? Maybe our failure isn't with the Divine Liturgy, or Matins, or Vespers, but perhaps we forget to thank God for the gift of Faith. It is Faith, not overmagnified excerpts of the Divine Liturgy which will help us when we face the "Just Judge" after our pilgrimage here on earth.

Circumstances came about that I attended the Akathist to the Mother of God at an Orthodox Church this past Saturday. I dropped my other committment to attend because I love this service. But the only people in attendance were my wife and I, the priest, and two people singing the responses (and it was beautifully done). As I read the projected expectations often expressed on this Forum, I should think that at least one third to one half of the congregation should have been present (since the RDL isn't an issue.)

Praying for Christ's graces to all this Holy Week,
Fr. Deacon Paul

So, Paul B.,

How long does one have to belong to the Ruthenian Church before one is considered "qualified" to have a meaningful opinion about it? As I said, I was baptized into this Church as an adult, having no prior connections to it. I chose to be a Ruthenian, and as such, I have taken a serious interest in the history and fortunes of the Church. I may not be related to fifteen priests, deacons and bishops on both sides of my family, but I have one advantage over most of those born in the Ruthenian Church--I can be objective about it. I have no dog in any of the ethnic or jurisdictional conflicts, and I can put them into their proper perspective. Furthermore, as an historian, I am trained to examine evidence, recognize trends and extrapolate both causes and effects.

I know how the Church was doing prior to the RDL. I know most of the reasons why. I also know that since the RDL, parishes that were flourishing are dying, and parishes that were dying have not been revived.

I don't believe the RD: was the product of one man, I believe it was the product of three men, each of whom had an agenda, each of whom rode roughshod over any opposition both before and after.

Your comments on "wording" reflect a real ignorance of the history of the Church. Words have meaning, and most of the deepest, most serious crises and controversies in the Church were fought over words and their meanings. If you think that the Divine Liturgy is just some adjunct of our faith, and not its central core, the source and touchstone of our theology and our spirituality, then not only do you not understand liturgy, you don't agree with the Catholic Church itself, which has identified liturgy as the most pure and perfect expression of the Christian faith. If the liturgy is not worth fighting about, what is?

"We have moved beyond this and yet we STILL are ashamed of our Church and see other Eastern Churches as superior."

That's because Ruthenians haven't made up their minds what they want to be. I believe the majority do not wish to be either Orthodox in Communion with Rome, or Latins with a cabaret license. I think most believe they can be something "in between"--neither fish nor fowl, but unique. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. The "third way" is not only unviable, it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself.

We, as Eastern Catholics, are called upon to manifest the possibility of being fully Eastern and fully Catholic, living in accordance with the Tradition of our particular rites. As Byzantine Catholics, we are called upon to live in accordance with the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition, to eliminate all distinctions between us and our Orthodox counterparts. Amazing, how many people during my years as an ECF teacher and as a member of a Ruthenian parish, I would explain why some particular usage, belief or expression was properly Orthodox, only to be told, "But we're not Orthodox, we're Catholic". And, for that matter, how many people want nothing at all to do with the Orthodox, but would rather travel across town to attend Mass at a Roman Catholic church, than to attend any service at an Orthodox parish, even if just down the block.

Therein lies the problem--you guys don't know what you are, and you don't know what you are supposed to be. In contrast, most of the other Greek Catholic jurisdictions with which I am familiar don't have this problem. They know what they are, they know what they want to be, and they know their ultimate destiny is to fold back into their Orthodox Mother Churches on that day--so deeply desired and anticipated--when communion between the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome is reestablished.

I have heard a Melkite Patriarch say that he is an Orthodox Christian. I have heard a Ukrainian Patriarch say there is no difference between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics. I have been told by a Romanian Orthodox priest (in Romania, no less!) that there is no reason why he can't give the Eucharist to a Greek Catholic ("Is the same thing!"). I have yet to hear any Ruthenian priest, deacon or bishop make such a commitment to the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition. I did hear a Ruthenian monk make such a statement, but, predictably, his monastery is no longer associated with the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Until such a commitment is made, with heart and mind, and is backed up with intelligent actions tempered by pastoral awareness, the Ruthenian Church will continue to fade away. The promulgation of the RDL merely accelerated the slide.

Stuart,

We obviously don't have the same perspective. Perhaps I am one of "you guys" but I am what I am. I am not ashamed of my Church and have feel no need to make any apologies; I don't feel that other Apostolic Churches are superior (or inferior.)

With the grace of God, my objective is to serve my God and upon my falling asleep, to be in His presence, whether in Heaven or the place of purgation. And I pray that I may be helpful for those in my parish to find the same end.

I have "no dog" in a fight to justify in human terms why Rusyn Greek Catholics should choose to be Orthodox OR Catholic. My humble feeling is that it is a scandal that we are divided. Obviously, over the centuries, many people feel as you do, that "wording" is ALL important. Maybe, just maybe, THAT is why we can't freely receive the Precious Body and Blood of Christ in each other's Church.

Fr Deacon Paul

Father Deacon,



My parish out West was flourishing. There were lots of children. The outreach I was working to establish was moving along very well and those in the outreach had a premier program for fostering vocations.

One of the reasons the Ruthenian Church has been dying is because like much of the Catholic Church the traditional teaching of the Church as reiterated in Humanae Vitae has largely been ignored.

I am a very practical man. I have never said that the Ruthenian Recension be mandated. Nevertheless, it should never have been banned. But when the ideal is banned and something less than ideal is made the required norm, there is a problem.



I agree that Liturgy by committee doesn't work.


Since we're not concerned with words, how about "the Path, the Suggestion and the Presence." Get my point? The faith has been handed down to us in very specific words, it's called a Creed. No Bishop has the authority to change it. It has been added to, but never has anything been dropped from it. (N.B. I have no problem with the removal of the filioque because that is our Eastern heritage and the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople remains normative.)



The RDL is teaching children that the words in which the fundamental expression of our faith is expressed can be changed. What kind of faith is that? The early martyrs would not even offer a pinch of incense to the "gods," but we'll tweak the Creed because it makes some feminist uncomfortable.

Thank you for your prayers. May you also have blessed Holy Week.

lm