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

I was just reading the article by Father David Petras in the recent paper. He titles it “The First Reform of the Liturgy.” What he writes is really has nothing to do with mandated liturgical reform of a Revised Divine Liturgy that was created by a committee. The early Christians did not look at the political winds and re-write their worship service for whatever the then current Woodstock generation was. They did not take what was sacred and make it profane. They did exactly the opposite. He is right in saying the early Christians were counter cultural. So why is the Petras Liturgy so Woodstock cultural?

We used to talk about the dark days under Metropolitan Stephen. Communicating infants and cross-kissing could get one a priest transferred to the boonies. We carried on hoping for better times. Judson was like a Prague spring. And we know he would not have promulgated the RDL. He exploded in anger the first time it was tried with the horrid Thompson music at the seminary. Now, under Archbishop Basil & the other bishops times are darker still. We pray and wait for a real Spring, when the Liturgy can be Byzantine again. When our Liturgy is purified from the Woodstock generation. When Roman Catholics are not put in charge of our music.

There was nothing wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy that we had. There was no just reason to ruin it. I pray the bishops will fire all involved in manufacturing the Revised Divine Liturgy and replace it with our Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. The 1964 and the music that went with it was perfect when you compare it to what they promulgated.

Oh please! Would you stop with the "Met. Judson wouldn't have" stuff already. Did you go to the 75th anniversary liturgy in Pittsburgh? It was a lot of the RDL already being rolled out. Did you hear the "our bishop X, who God loves" in the litanies and great entrance that was eventually returned back to "our God loving bishop X?" If Met. Judson hadn't died, the RDL would have been out a lot sooner.

I was at the 75th that John K mentions. A few bits from the RDL were certainly used (mostly rubrics). And using the "Whom God loves" in reference to the bishops was so controversial and ridiculed it eventually was dropped (it just wasn't a great translation). [Had the new texts, rubrics and music been available to the Church for review they would not have been promulgated in the form they were promulgated.] But the texts and music used by the people at the 75th were what they knew (the 1965), so his claim that a lot of that was RDL is not accurate. No one really knows what would have happened. I personally believe that Metropolitan Judson would have respected both the Liturgical Instruction (1996) and Liturgiam Authenticam (2001). As it is the bishops have openly rejected these directives. I also believe that Metropolitan Basil would not have promulgated the RDL on his own accord. The force behind it (at the level of bishop) is Bishop Pataki, who wanted a "Third Way" that (among other things) would change our Liturgy so that we could never merge with either other Greek Catholics or the Orthodox. Unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) is important and the RDL destroys such unity. Accurate translations are also important, and we have seen how even the now retired head of the Congregation of Divine Worship noted doctrinal problems with the style of paraphrasing the Commission used.

As to the article I read it last night. I will first give credit to Father Petras for the effort in writing articles for so many years. I often disagree with him (logical since I support o/Orthodoxy in Liturgy by following the Vatican directives and he rejects o/Orthodoxy in Liturgy, and has dismissed the referenced directives as bad theology). I certainly admire his "stick-to-it-ness" over the years.

The title of the article is "The First Reform of the Liturgy" and he includes some interesting bits of history. He does not, however, make any attempt (scholarly or otherwise) to link the current reform that produced the RDL to what he considers reforms of the early Church. Or, to put it another way, after the title he makes no attempt either to state the case or to support such a premise. And in some of the points he tries to make he does so with extreme examples from either end while ignoring the more commonly accepted middle ground entirely (probably because it does not support his goal for the article? - a common tactic of many writers). Indeed, one can look at the way Liturgy developed over time in Byzantium. Yes, you can certainly find examples of where something was mandated (the addition of "Only Begotten Son", for example). But for the most part Byzantium Liturgy developed & changed organically over time, and when the liturgical books were updated they were mostly just documenting what had already been accepted for a long time. To call the development of Liturgy in the early Church "reform" is rather odd (since scholars generally call it "development" or something similar). But one certainly cannot say that such development is the same as Father David advancing his personal agenda for radical change in the Liturgy with the RDL. In the end Father Petras has never offered any serious scholarship for the changes made with the RDL (and I include his book on the matter for it just merely describes the changes without justifying them). His articles come across as from a man who is serious and well-intentioned in his efforts but one who is grasping at straws because he knows scholarship does not support the positions he advances (even Father Robert Taft, SJ has condemned the RDL) and that what he has advanced has greatly harmed the Church.

I will "bite my tongue" regarding Bishop Pataki. But I included it in the quote to state that I agree, he was the driving force in this.

It is interesting, however, that after the promulgation, ACROD had Prof. Thompson at one of their clergy meetings, each priest received one of the "Teal Terror" books, and ACROD discussed utilizing it as well. I know that some of the "outrage" that has been expressed here for translations, was heard.

John--the 75th Liturgy was almost identical to what was being used in Passaic at the time, and what was being used in Passaic ***is not that far off*** from the RDL of today. (I was not talking about the majority of translations/texts or music, just rubrics. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough on that.) The Passaic liturgy was certainly not in use in the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh then, so I'm sure that it was a culture shock to people from that diocese who were there. And let's not forget, no matter who translated, collated, revised, reviewed, or corrected the RDL, Rome approved it. Once more for emphasis: Rome approved it, and allowed the bishops to promulgate it. And that is what matters.

There's a lot of personal assumptions, charges, and implied insider knowledge, presented as factual, in your post too, with nothing to back it up. I don't want to get into a tit for tat, but you seem to be doing the same thing that you charge Father David with.

I'll say it again as I have before on this forum, I have no stake in this issue anymore, because, like you, I no longer attend a church in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. I'll also say this, I do understand your hurt and feelings of being betrayed and your loss of what you knew as the Liturgy, but I no longer see anything constructive coming out of these discussions. Any healing of the wound the RDL may have caused some people is constantly being reopened here.

I tried to be charitable, and I hope I succeeded. John K

That's a little bit like Marion Barry's claim that DC was a perfectly safe place, if you ignored all the killings. It's the translation, far more than the rubrics, that are unacceptable in the RDL (the music is another issue, but can be considered separately from the texts).


You assume that anyone in authority even read it. Or that if they did, they had any competence to pass judgment. Father Taft, one man whose opinion I value, has indicated he was instructed only to review the text for "heresy", and not to comment on the accuracy or aesthetics of the text itself. His recent statements on the issue, though guarded and eliptical, leave no doubt that he has serious problems with the RDL.

Note that Rome did not approve any changes to the propers of the Liturgy--the troparia, kontakia, prokimena, irmoi, etc.--which have been promulgated by the Metropolia without formal review (and it is interesting that the RDL versions of the propers show even greater deviation from the Slavonic text than does the fixed part of the Liturgy). Rome also did not approve the music nor the Metropolia's attempt to impose one particular musical style upon all its churches. In short, the RDL was pushed through the Oriental Congregation with heavy lobbying on the part of a few Ruthenian clerics who had a personal commitment to the project. It has never received any scholarly review.


And that's what's wrong with the Ruthenian Church as a whole--like the spinster getting long in the tooth, she's all too "willing to settle". If something is defective, it will remain defective no matter how many times people say, "but Rome approved it". The damage that bad liturgy does will continue to happen whether we acknowledge the elephant in the bedroom or not. Pretending there is no problem does not settle the problem, it only postpones and exacerbates judgment day when it finally arrives.

It (the Passaic liturgicon) is quite far off from the main points of contention concerning the RDL. I'd say I'm very, very familiar with the Passaic liturgicon. In some ways, one should have seen the problems coming, but they were not there yet. To equate the Passaic liturgicon to the RDL is not to know one or the other or the real issues.

ok the same except for all the real issues??? For the record, the rubrics in their details are also a problem -- I made some very specific posts concerning the rubrics.


That's one way to look at it and one would expect the obvious and correct way. Yet on looking at the facts, the texts, the translation, the lack of answers to legitimate questions, the lack of reasoned explanations, I'm finding myself wondering how could 12 years of effort, approval (somehow) by the highest authority, concurrence and promulgation by our bishops -- how, how could this have happened (resulting in the RDL)? This is a real dilemma: Am I to believe the expectation or my own eyes?

The inference of a "third way" is a serious charge and should be a great concern to our church; if verifiable, it is a disgrace.

Consider the truth coming out. Wouldn't full disclosure on the process, the expense, the personal motivations and agendas, the approval process, and specific justifications and explanations for the translation, the chant (and the monopoly mandated thereby) and the abridgement of the liturgy -- wouldn't full disclosure be a good catharsis?

That's not even a funny comparison Stuart. Watch the video of the anniversary Liturgy and tell me that it's not ordered very similarly to what was being done in the Passaic diocese in 1999 and then watch a video of the RDL (with the sound off so you don't have to hear the translation and music) and see how close they are.



Read what I wrote Stuart, not what you want to read. I don't assume anything, I said "no matter who translated, collated, revised, reviewed, or corrected the RDL, Rome approved it." This is a Greek Catholic Church, dependent and answerable to Rome.

Where can I read what Fr. Robert had to say about the RDL? Can you point me to a website? I'd like to read it. When the RDL first came out Fr. Robert was being blamed for being the one that read and approved it for the Congregation, now he's the victim of a conspiracy. Interesting...


I was unaware that the propers were not approved by Rome as well. Is this verifiable? Rome has to approve the music too? Has Rome approved the music that every composer has written to set Mass texts throughout history? Gregorian chant seems to have been THE music of the Latin liturgy to a point and there are those in that Church that are pushing to bring it back as THE music for that rite today, exclusive of everything else, regardless of the language or culture.


Again, do you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have? Does the RDL or any liturgy need any scholarly review to be used, especially if it's approved?


There's a lot more than just bad liturgy doing damage to the Church.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, Passaic has mandated the first round of changes a few years earlier. But there are huge differences between the Passaic Liturgicon and the RDL Liturgicon. This has been discussed before.

Not sure what this means? Rome appears to have approved the RDL on 31 March 2001. Liturgicam Authenticam was approved on 28 March 2001 and became effective on 25 April 2001. It seems to me that Rome raised the bar for better translations. Given that the bishops didn’t promulgate a translation that violated both the Liturgical Instruction (1996) and Liturgical Authenicam (2001) until six additional years went by they had a responsibility to obey the new and improved directives from Rome and instead chose to ignore or reject them. As faithful Catholics we have both a right and an obligation to ask our bishops why they ignored / rejected these directives, and to insist that they follow them. I intend to spend the next number of years petitioning Rome and our bishops to be obedient to Rome in matters regarding Liturgy. We are not seeking some sort of special permission from Rome for our priests to celebrate an older form of the Ruthenian Rite. We seek permission for the celebration of the ordinary form of the Ruthenian Rite, in accordance with the normative books promulgate by Rome and forbidden by the Council of Hierarchs. This is a very “mainstream” position.

On the specific points I have made regarding Liturgy I have provided ample documentation using quotes from numerous sources: the liturgical texts themselves, the Vatican directives, Orthodox sources, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Father Robert Taft, SJ, and others. You just don’t see such references in what Father David Petras has offered (read both my posts and his in this forum over the past few years and you can see that quite easily). But if you are only referring to the article in question, it is his article. He has the responsibility to provide the scholarly references and to make his point. My pointing out that he has not done so does not mean I need to do it for him. Your charge does not withstand the evidence posted on this very forum.

I hold a quite different opinion. Healing and new growth in the Ruthenian Church cannot happen as long as the RDL is in effect. As we have discussed numerous times, the RDL is just one more symptom of many issues within the Ruthenian Church. There is a continuing identity crisis, and until things are corrected the best that anyone can hope for is that the bleeding be kept to a minimum. The RDL did not create the wound. It is just salt that the bishops insist on pouring into the wound.

Don’t worry; I don’t consider your comments uncharitable. But telling people to stop working for authentic renewal does not help the cause.

Ah, but that makes my point--rubrics are, for the most part, transparent to the people. Some might notice, but as most of the rubrics concern what the priest does behind the iconostasis, the vast majority will not. And, in any case, rubrics do not hit home with the immediacy of the spoke word. So, my analogy is apt--if you ignore the text and the music, you won't notice many changes in the Liturgy ca. 1999 and the Liturgy ca. 2008. Unfortunately, I am not deaf, and I really got tired of having to hold my hands over my ears.


It was a thread here. I believe the Administrator posted it.


That's an abrogation of responsibility to bear witness to the truth.


Short answer--yes.


But, since Liturgy is what the Church is and does, bad liturgy causes more damage, deeper damage, and more lasting damage. And, if you look at the root causes of the other problems, bad liturgy is at the bottom of it all--and has been, for more than a century.

See this thread. This was a widely discussed topic. I am surprised you missed it as it is still near the top of the listing in this forum. Father Taft is too polite to mention Pittsburgh directly, but since his last book Pittsburgh is the ONLY local Church to issue a revised version of the Divine Liturgy. And others have verified with Father Robert that he was speaking of the Pittsburgh Revision.

If you were to say that the Oriental Congregation is less then optimal in organization you'd probably be correct. My understanding is that under the final years of Cardinal Silvestrini not much happened and under Patriarch Daoud (2000-2007) anything in English was delegated (he was "promoted" from Patriarch of Antioch to head of the Oriental after only three years as patriarch). Rome is not perfect and as a large bureaucracy one hand very often does not know what the other hand is doing. Cardinal Sandri now heads it up and it took almost a year to get a reply to a letter from his office!

And don't forget that Slovak Liturgicon. Rome approved it and then unapproved it when the problems were brought to light. They have a much better one now.

This speaks reams. We have become so alienated from our authentic Tradition that we can no longer be trusted to recover it without adult supervision.

The whole Ruthenian Church must restore the official forms and be formed by them for several generations before our Church is mature enough to speak to issues like Liturgy. Currently our whole Church - from bishops to laymen - are ill formed in our own Liturgical Tradition and cannot speak to many issues competently. Rome is wise to direct us to restore the official forms and to live them, and be formed by them. There is absolutely no pastoral need to update anything. And the more time I spend with the Liturgy (general study, working on translations, etc.) the more I see the Lord's genius at work in them, even in the smallest detail.

In reply to Blessed Theodore:
First, Eternal Memory to Archbishop Judson. He made some difficult decisions and was well respected by the clergy and laity of the Metropolia. I do not judge him; I just want to avoid misconceptions.
I ask you to ponder who was it that purged the old Seminary staff and replaced it with those serving in the time frame of the new translation?
Who was it that approved the radically different "feminist" language of the Sisters of St Basil Matins and Vespers publications. The so-called RDL actually "softened" the language.

That is all that I ask. If you are not fully informed then please don't offer misleading or unfounded information. Thank you.

S'nami Boh!
Fr Deacon Paul

John-

Fr Robert was in Phoenix during January 2008 speaking to the Jesuit Alumni in Arizona, and in a private conversation I had with him about the RDL, I did not come away with the same impression that you have. Father Robert may be polite, but above all else he is quite candid. In fact, in reference to a critic of the RDL, he used the term "loose cannon." Of course, none of this is of any import to Fr Robert. As he stated, he is a liturgical historian, he is not involved in making pastoral decisions which, again in his words, are best left to the bishops.