www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Principles of Eastern liturgical reform and renewal

http://www.cin.org/docs/eastinst.html

18. Liturgical reform and renewal

The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating. Although a delicate task that must be executed with care so as not to disturb souls, it must be coherently and constantly pursued if the Eastern Catholic Churches want to remain faithful to the mandate received.

It is once again John Paul II who declares: "If, therefore, you must trim extraneous forms and developments, deriving from various influences that come from liturgical and paraliturgical traditions foreign to your tradition, it is possible that, so doing, you will have to also correct some popular habits."

We are witness today to the diffusion of a mentality that tends to overvalue efficiency, excessive activism, and the attainment of results with minimum effort and without deep personal involvement. This attitude can also negatively influence the approach towards liturgy, even in the East. The liturgy, rather, continues to be a demanding school which requires an assimilation that is progressive, laborious, and never completely accomplished. Monastic communities are particularly sensitive to this dimension and, therefore, can make an important contribution to the full comprehension and progress of the liturgical heritage. From this arises the opportunity to involve in this common responsibility, wherever possible, masculine and feminine monastic communities belonging to the same tradition. These considerations do not take away from the rightful exigency to express, as much as possible, the Gospel in a plain and clear way for the contemporary man and woman.

Every formula necessitates, therefore, unceasing vigilance to remain alive under the breath of the Spirit. But Tradition, even in its literal expression - as is the case for Scriptures -contains unrenouncable treasures; its strengths are received, assimilated, and utilized to transmit to mankind the fullness of the Mystery of God. Indeed, it is about words of fire, just like the Word of God which is sharper than a two-edged sword and penetrates to the division of soul and spirit (cf. Heb. 4:12). The fact that they are constantly repeated in the liturgy should not take anything away from their vigor and perennial timeliness.

19. Study and profundity prior to every modification It is indispensable to remember the exhortation in n. 23 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "In order that sound tradition be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, the revision of any part of the liturgy should occur only after careful investigation -theological, historical, and pastoral." Indeed, the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican Council was able to be carried out precisely because it was preceded, and successfully followed, by lengthy experimentation, intense historical studies, critical textual analyses, theological studies, biblical studies, and pastoral studies, culminating in the work of individual and committee research, both at the local and international level. Without all this, the references, frameworks, and precise contents necessary for a valid endeavor would not have been obtained.

20. Criteria for liturgical renewal

In modifying ancient liturgical practice, it must be determined if the element to be introduced is coherent with the contextual meaning in which it is placed. Such a context should be understood beginning with eventual references to Sacred Scripture, interpretations of the Holy Fathers, liturgical reforms previously made, and mystagogical catechesis.

Here it must be verified that the new change is homogeneous with the symbolic language, with the images and the style specific to the liturgy of the particular Church. The new element will have its place if, required for serious pastoral reasons, it blends within the celebration without contrast but with coherence, almost as if it had naturally derived from it. In addition, it should be ensured that it is not already present, perhaps in another form, in a different moment of the celebration or in another part of the liturgical <corpus> of that Church. Every renewal initiative should be careful not to be conditioned by other systems, which may appear to be more efficient.

From time to time, addressing the faithful of various Eastern Catholic Churches, John Paul II's vibrant and repeated exhortations refer to such caution: "Do not adhere with excessive improvisation to the imitation of cultures and traditions which are not your own, thus betraying the sensibility of your own people. (...) This means it is necessary that every eventual adaptation of your liturgy be founded on an attentive study of the sources, objective knowledge of the specific features of your culture, and maintenance of the tradition common to all Coptic Christianity."

21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage

Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, <Orientalium Ecclesiarum> (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage. 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.

Thank you for underscoring this key point, and I am glad to see it emphasized.

The Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic Church must do nothing which will further distinguish its liturgical patrimony from the rest of the Byzantine Churches.

Furthermore, what Orthodox Church would ever consider the merits and value of the path of unity with the Church of Rome, if they perceive that there will be pressure to move toward the revision, simplification, reformation, or latinization of their own liturgical tradition?
Elias

I think the problem lies not so much with Rome (I believe the era of pressure to conform to the Roman way of things is long gone) but with our own people. There is still sometimes a disdain of things "Orthodox" (including using that term where it occurs in our liturgical texts) by some of our people.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I am enjoying these threads, and learning a lot.

While I have a number quibbles and questions about the revised liturgy posted by Lance, and think that a few of the specific criticism have a lot of merit, I also think that much of the criticisms are overblown and need some quiet re-thinking. I like to raise the question:
what are the salient features of Orthodox liturgical sensibility that are violated by this Liturgy? Please read this:

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Paul-Meyendorff/Articles/Liturgical-Path-of-Orthodoxy.html [svots.edu]

then reconsider the whether or not the following are consistent or inconsistent with Orthodox practices:
development of a standard parish usage that represents a substantial abbreviation of the monastic Typikon, including the elimination of repetitive litanies;
taking aloud secret/silent prayers of the priest -in particular the anaphora.

Please note that while taking secret prayers aloud has been constrewn here as symptomatic of clericalization/latinization, Meyendorff sees it as de-clericalization and as a specific aim of liturgical renewal within Orthodoxy. And it is done in some 80% of the OCA parishes. I wish we could be more circumspect about the use of the "latinization" shibboleth.

Finally, there are, on-line, a number of English translations in use in various Orthodox juridictions. If you examine them you will find that some of the textual changes commented on actual bring greater harmony with Orthodox renderings (e.g., "Mercy, peace, ..."). And the differences of our texts from these are within the variance of Orthodox texts themselves.

Overall, then, I perceive that the proposed Litugy is in fact compatible with the Instructions. I assume good-faith on the part of our litugical committee, and thus suppose that they feel the same way.

So what, specifically, am I missing?

djs

[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Taking aloud secret/silent prayers can be said to be consistent with Orthodox practice.

Re: "elimanating of repetitive litanies"...we Ruthenians seem to be trailblazing here. It's that desire to get Liturgy down to 50 minutes (including Communion).

I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that has completely jettisoned the "grant it, O Lord" petitions (for example, the prayer for the guardian angel, etc.) Maybe, I'm mistaken about that, anyone?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave,

My guess is that you are right about this, and it may be true that all the other litanies are retained. But according to Meyendorff, this idea has been in circulation in Orthodoxy for a while.

.
This new liturgy is probably longer than the old. If the idea is to complete the liturgy within an hour, it's very simple: chant in an appropriate conversational tempo, rather than dragging out each note.

djs

[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Dear djs,

Thank you for your moderate tone. I will try to be a little less passionate.

Yes, the new translation is not all bad. There were some poor phrasings in the curent Liturgicon, and even some inaccurate renderings, which could be improved upon, at the appropriate time. In some ways, the new text is similar to some texts in use in the Orthodox Church, and I am not at all against improving the text.

You are right of course, 'standard' parish use will call for some abbreviation of the Divine Liturgy. This is normal in most parishes now, but it is not uniform. For this reason direction would be helpful so as to make the use more standard. In another thread Lance posts an (abbreviated) version of the 'standard' Liturgy in use, in which he indicates many things are "not taken". However in may places these prayers are taken. Perhaps not in his parish.

And it is the right and duty of the bishop to regulate and direct this, and I am sympathetic to the point that it would be better if what was, and was not, taken was more standard in our parishes.

While I might question certain words, which seem to depart from the typical text, the translation itself is not the main issue with me. I have studied Greek, but not slavonic, and so I am not a linguistic authority.

But it seems there are still some inaccuracies continue to appear in the new translation, and that there are even new ones, I wonder what is the advantage of promulgating it at this time?

In some places the text is an improvement. But is the improvement worth the cost and disruption that producing all new books will involve? I don't think so.

The main problem with the revised text, as I see it, is in what has been described as the "new rubrics". The typical text contains 'rubrics'. These should be translated carefully and accurately. I believe it is in the 'rubrics' that most inaccuracies of translation have occured, some have been omitted, others revised, others invented. This is a matter of some concern.

My main point, is that the Liturgy is not abbreviated everywhere. There are places where it is taken more fully. For example, in monasteries, or on retreat weekends, when there is time to take the full Liturgy. On certain occasions, certain Litanies are appropriate (to name one example; when catechumens are blessed, in preparation for their baptism). Now if the new Liturgicon omits these prayers (as not usually taken), monasteries and retreat houses, and some chapels and parishes where the whole Liturgy is taken will not be able to use the new translation.

It is better to produce a Liturgicon which is a complete text with as accurate a translation as possible. Then it can be used by everyone. If it is merely a reduced version, which reflects only (abbreviated) parish use, other books and versions will be used. Is this ideal? Most of our Church exists in parishes, and parish Liturgy is most important, I grant that. But there are other places, not parishes, where the Liturgy is celebrated. The whole text excludes no one, for those who wish to abbreviate can still do so, simply by turning the page.

Some abbreviations however, simply do not work. The most glaring example is the 'destruction' (sorry, I am getting carried away again), of the service of the 3 antiphons. This version, in my 'now-outspoken' opinion, does not work Liturgically.

If one insists on only taking one antiphon, then take only one antiphon! But take one complete antiphon, with its verses and repeated refrain. To take one verse of each, with 3 different refrains interrupted by the hymn of the Incarnation, makes an un-singable mess. I have never heard this done well. The 1st verse of the 3rd antiphon, hung artificially at the end of the hymn of the Incarnation always sounds like a lost and confused remnant of something. By the time the people realize that it has been intoned, and change key, and begin to sing, it is over!

The books should contain the antiphons as Msgr. Levkullic set them out in his pew book. Three or four verses is plenty. Less is not worth starting.

The 3 antiphons, with the 3 Litanies make a wonderful service and openning of the Liturgy. The interplay of Litanies and Antiphons is inspired, and "works" as good Liturgy, in a way that the proposed abbreviations simply do not. It is an example of where the tradition is better than the innovation.

In a parish setting, on a weekday, on a 'hot' summer day, if you only want to take 1 Antiphon and 1 Litany, the world will not end. But do not make that the norm! Of course, abbreviations are allowed, but they must not be the 'standard' text, or it will not become the standard text.

Forgive me for speaking so boldly. Liturgy is something I have strong opinions about. I am grateful that this thread was started, and that I had this opportunity. Now you all know my thoughts, and perhaps I should be silent (I suspect I have said too much already).

with apologies,

Elias

Father Elias,

Please feel no need to be silent. I, and I am sure I speak for everyone else, enjoy and benefit from your comments. As one of the few priests who participate here, your insight is particularly valuable. This is doubled by the fact that you are a monsatic. You have seen the best (and worst?) of both parish and monastery. Please keep the comments coming.

In Christ,
Lance

I politely but strongly disagree that the criticisms are overblown. It is my position that we have yet to restore our inheritance to where it was before it was lost to latinization before we begin to tinker with it. I appreciate the points made and agree with many of them. But for us Ruthenians the liturgy has never been a spectator sport. With our wonderful gift to the Church of prostopinije we all have the opportunity of a full participation in the Divine Liturgy. I also submit that those who belong to parishes where there is not a full celebration of vespers and matins do not have a proper reference point to even begin revising our inheritance.

It is really up to those who seek to revise our liturgy to prove that it is broken or that it no longer speaks to the world. How many of us have witnessed the Office of Three Antiphons (complete with a deacon and the litanies) on a regular basis? Anyone who has would never think of paring it down to the disjointed shell it has become. In the Ukrainian Catholic parishes near me they abbreviate the liturgy by taking the entire First Antiphon and skipping the Second and Third Antiphons. I do not agree with this but, having witnessed it, I see where the people can at least sing the verses of the First Antiphon with gusto whereas the proposed revision in our Ruthenian Church maintains a very disjointed collection of psalm verses. If we are to abbreviate, there are better ways and the abbreviated liturgy should never become the norm, it should always be the exception.

Regarding the taking of the prayers of the anaphora aloud, again, I reject to the rubrical requirement to do so. Each priest should be allowed to determine what will serve his congregation best on a given Sunday. I disagree with djs that just because some Orthodox are taking the Anaphora aloud that gives us justification for mandating all of our priests do so. One needs to first consider that many Orthodox priests are just as latinized in spirit as are we. After all, we live side by side here in America. I suspect this Westernization in the Paris / St. Vlad's school of theology is partly why the monks of Athos or the rest of the Orthodox Church has not embraced it. I have made the point several times already in these discussions but it is clear that the mandating of certain prayers to be taken aloud is the verbal equivalent of removing the icon screen and moving the altar to the center of the church.

We Byzantine Christians should be looking to what the rest of Orthodoxy worldwide is doing with the liturgy. We should not forget that even though the Vatican II council wrought great changes in the Western Church it simply told us to renew our Byzantine patrimony where it had been lost. There is wisdom in this that we should not toss away so lightly.

Fr. Elias' comments on the Office of the Three Antiphons are excellent and I support them.

Sorry if I gave this impression. My point was that in view of the various practices included in Orthodoxy, one cannot say that this innovation violated that part of the instruction highlighted by DTB.
Your comment on the latinization/westernization of European/American Orthodoxy is very interesting. It raises tough questions: to what extent does our calling to be Byzantine involve a rejection of Western civilization? Can our Byzantine heritage and spritual life be fully inculturated within our western lives? How can we practice Byzantine Christianity, when our churches all have parking lots?

I do agree with the "ain't broke, don't fix" idea.
I have no idea what precipitated this "reform", buit assume good-faith by all parties involved.
I have to say that I am happy to see things are not as bad as I had feared (I had feared much worse - becoming a stranger to my own church), and pray that I can say the same whenever I see the new music.

djs

Father Elias,

Your passion is a blessing to us all.

Actually, I tend to agree with specific your criticisms.

I agree that the old manner of leaving all of the litanies "in", but notating which must be included, and which are "typically" taken silently is a better approach. Is it certain that this latitude will not be maintained?

I like the idea of the new standard having all three antiphons (I have only heard the third in English in a Russian Catholic Church, where they do the beatitudes). By the way, a recording by the seminarians in Presov, has the 3rd antiphon sung in four verses with the last, following a pause, being the Little entrance hymn. These go together so well, and are so "entrance oriented" that I feel deprived not having had the 3rd antiphon. I agree that there needs to be "setting off" of each antiphon in the manner of the little litanies. And I wish we would repeat "Protect us, save us, have mercy on us, and preserve us..." many times more rather than less.

And as I said above, the key to brevity is to get people to chant a tempo!

What I find most surprising about the new rubrics, are the choices made about which of the silent prayers are now taken aloud. The anaphora of course, or in general prayers of the priest that belong to us all. Some things, however, sound more like a private conversation between the deacon and priest - for example, their taking a seat before the epistle. It will be interesting to learn why this and similar conversations are regarded as significant.

Can anyone help with this?

djs

Our posters here all bring up some very significant and well thought-out points.

Liturgical reform is never easy and it is impossible to satisfy everyone's particular likes and dislikes by producing a "standard" liturgical redaction. Nevertheless, there are ways to introduce reforms using what we've called "liturgical sense" and in like manner, there seem to be those revisions which appear to be quite haphazard and/or reflect merely a personal preference on the part of the ones compiling the redaction.

One problem with a "uniform" version of the liturgy is that it can become very stagnant and stifling, especially when there may be those occasions which call for either a more complete celebration of the Divine Liturgy or those during which some of the "required" practices may just not be appropriate.

The production of a standardized version of the liturgy began as a response to the situation of our church in and about ten to fifteen years ago, when there was so much variety in the way that the service was celebrated from parish to parish, that Bishop Pataki, as Eparch of Parma, on the advice of his then liturgical commission felt it beneficial to the entire eparchy, that one uniform redaction of the Divine Liturgy would be promulgated for use in each and every parish church. The result was the so-called "Parma recension" that has become the basis for all subsequent standard versions of the liturgy, including the imminent Metropolia version which is in the making. In general, the Parma liturgy was a dignified celebration, which in time, became familiar to most all of the faithful and clergy. As with our present dilemma, there were then too, certain awkward or inadequate decisions made as to what is taken and what is not. It did however, in those places where the clergy cooperated with the standardization, circumvent the extremely poor manner in which the liturgy was offered in certain parishes that were either highly latinized or which abbreviated the service in a way that would shock most of us here.

The problem with such an "absolute" redaction of the Divine Liturgy, where there is no allowance whatsoever for variation according to time and place, or local preferences that are legitimately a part of our authentic recension, is that the liturgy becomes "mechanical" and "legalistic" in the western sense that some have indicated here. Since the Divine Liturgy is a living service of sacrifice and prayer, it necessitates a certain amount of freedom on the part of clergy and congregation, that would allow for the Holy Spirit to inspire particular occasions and circumstances according to the needs of the particular people who are celebrating it.

I would welcome the idea expressed by Fr. Elias, in which a "typical" version of the liturgy should be produced or maintained, that includes the entire Divine Liturgy with attention to our proper recension and a relevant translation of it. A "liturgikon" is a book that contains the entire service of the Eucharistic Liturgy, not parts or pieces thereof. If this was produced, or if we were to continue to use the very adequate version that we have had since 1965, eparchial bishops or even the Council of Hierarchs together, could then promulgate an "ordo" or set order of service, that would be typical in every parish, monastery and oratory. A stipulation should somehow be devised, that would allow for an either more complete or abbreviated celebration, based on true pastoral prudence and a legitimate circumstance, from time to time, as long as these would be seen more as an exception to the typical format rather than a return to the chaotic "pick and choose" atmosphere which percipitated these standard liturgies in the first place.

I strongly believe that it is necessary to preserve the structure and integrity of the "Office of the Three Antiphons." Everyone here who has indicated their concern for this has a legitimate argument. One verse on three antiphons simply does not do justice to either the scripture itself or to the "liturgical sense" of the antiphons. The small ektenias that come between the psalm verses and responses serve a real purpose of marking the distinction between the psalms and their purpose. I would suggest however, that if circumstance warrants it, these ektenias need not be taken always and everywhere in their entirety, but that the option could be implemented of merely using the introduction, "Again and again in peace . . . " with the "vozhlas" or exclamation of the priest immediately following. This exclamation could be taken with or without its accompanying prayer. While this abbreviation, if allowed, should be an exception rather than a norm, it still allows for the natural division of the three antiphons to stand out.

In Ukrainian Catholic churches which omit the second antiphon as a rule, I notice problems that result, not the least of which is the loss of both integral structure of the "Office" and also the beauty of the psalms themselves. This is particularly noticeable during holydays and their postfestive period, when there are special antiphons (in this case the second) with variable psalms and the appropriate festal response which according to this practice of eliminating always the second antiphon, are no longer heard by the worshippers ever. It is simply another poor alternative to the reduction of the antiphons to one verse each.

Yes, the use of the third antiphon is both appropriate to the occasion of the little entrance, through its imagery of joyful acclamation to God the Lord, who is appearing in his Word through the entrance of the Gospel Book, and a necessary element in the structure of the "Office of the Three Antiphons."

In regards to the antiphons, one thing that should be made clear, is that our Ruthenian recension follows the Greek style of this office and in no way should we consider the use of the "typical psalms" or "izobratitel'naya" as is the norm in the Russian recension. While this may be adequate for them, it is not our style and our church does the Greek antiphons a great service by taking them in their entirety, since in many Greek and Arabic churches, these particular antiphons, while used theoretically, are reduced to an even more unfortunate state, with people merely singing the refrains three times ("Through the prayers of the Mother of God . . . "; "Save us, O Son of God . . . ") without any psalm verses at all. Considered in this light, our practice is many steps ahead the manner of singing the antiphons in these other churches.

While I do not absolutely agree that we have to solely look to what Orthodox churches of various traditions are doing in the contemporary liturgical setting, I also feel strongly that we should not introduce certain reforms or perhaps "corrections" that is universally unheard of in any Orthodox or even other Greek Catholic churches and which would further alienate our parishes from the liturgical experience of most every other Byzantine Rite celebration. An important example of this is the new innovation of singing only "It is proper and just" after the "preface" of the anaphora and dropping the remainder of the hymn: "to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in substance and undivided." While this may be more faithful to the original form of the anaphora, which added the second part of the verse after the priest's prayers became inaudible, it is simply foreign to any and all other versions of the liturgy across the board (at least that I have ever heard of). This shortening of the people's acclamation not only makes the liturgy seem very awkward to both our own people and those from other jurisdictions that would notice this change, it is certain to alienate our version of the liturgy from all other celebrations of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. Does anyone else have the same serious concern over this innovation?

Another example of this unique and odd change to universal liturgical practice is the phrase, "In wisdom, let us profess our faith." While this may make sense in relation to what is about to take place, it simply is not done in any other redaction of the Divine Liturgy.

As for "our bishop (n), loved by God" or a similar translation, I assert that this is not only equally awkward but, as some of our posters have pointed out, gives the wrong impression that God has some sort of special love for the hierarchy that is not enjoyed by the faithful or regular clergy. Whether or not "God-loving" is a mis-translation, it rightly conveys the idea that the bishop, as an example to all the people, must love the Lord God with his whole heart, mind and strength and his neighbor as himself. Our Ruthenian recension is unique in using this phrase "God-loving" and I do not feel that, in lieu of changing the translation of the term, it should be replaced by phrases used in other traditions, such as "His Grace, our bishop (n)" or something similar. These do not convey the beauty of our term, explained above. As concerns this aspect of the new translation, I strongly feel that we should preserve our custom of using "God-loving" as does also the Johnstown diocese.

I'd better conclude my remarks at this point, but I thank you all for taking the time to read my thoughts. Since the liturgy is both an integral part of who we are as a church and of great interest to me personally, it is vital to our future that we make reforms and standardizations reflect authentic development and well thought-out liturgical sense. I pray that the hierarchs and those responsible for advising them as to these revisions give consideration to the opinions of the people that will be effected by them and for whom the liturgy is a living form of both prayer and sacrifice to God. Rather than being based solely on intellectual, historical or practical considerations, any liturgical accomplishments will be successful only by the measure of which they allow those celebrating it to experience more fully that which the liturgy proclaims and actualizes. God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In regard to "our bishop N whom God loves," to the abbreviation of the Antiphons, to the non-use of the words "orthodox" and "Theotokos": none of these was the original proposal of the IELC. These decisions were made by the Council of Hierarchs before the manuscript of the Chrysostom Liturgy was submitted to the Oriental Congregation.

And, when it comes to rubrics that set the Ruthenian Use apart from the rest of the Byzantine Rite: I have not heard anyone commend the new translation for the absolute restoration (as opposed to the option) of Zeon/Teplota, nor for the restoration of the Ablutions to their properly Byzantine position in the service.
These are certainly two things that were negative distinguishing marks of the Ruthenian Use vis-a-vis the rest of Orthodoxy.

Concerning the "It is proper and just:" The Greek- and Arab-speaking churches have never had the addendum "...to worship the Father...etc.

J. Michael Thompson

"I have not heard anyone commend the new translation for the absolute restoration (as opposed to the option) of Zeon/Teplota, ..."

Professor Michael,

As for commending the absolute restoration of Zeon/Teplota, many priests have been doing that for ages and ages. Wasn't it about time that our hierarchs finally mandate something their priests were doing correctly (since I was a teenager) like so many other things Byzantine? I commend our priests for preserving our traditions, especially when it was not in vogue to do so.

- - -

"Regarding the taking of the prayers of the anaphora aloud, again, I reject to the rubrical requirement to do so. Each priest should be allowed to determine what will serve his congregation best on a given Sunday."

Administrator,

I disagree with you again on the silent anaphora. Taking it aloud should not be optional - like having the Filioque in parenthese. It is confusing. Does one take it or not? The main prayer should not be a secret or silent prayer. Do we take the prayers for Baptism-Chrismation silently? Do we take the priestly prayer for marriage silently? Do we take the prayers of absolution silently? Why should we take the anaphora, the core prayer of our liturgy, silently? This is a bigga Latinization or, better yet, corruption that I ever saw. It is a product of clericalization, a trait that manifested itself in both Eastern and Western Churches. It doesn't make sense to take the majority of the prayer silently and then take aloud only key parts (ie, institution narrative). Those parts taken aloud reflect the true intent of the clericalization and Latinization. To emphasize the secret powers of the priest, the disconnected dialogue between clergy and laity, and the emphasis on the Latin idea of Transubstantiation at the Kodak Moment of species change. The responses, in turn, take on a life of their own totally disconnected from what the priest is doing at the altar. Probably why many took up praying the rosary during "Mass" since their participation didn't matter and it gave them something to do while the priest was doing his thing up there at the altar.

- - -

"The Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic Church must do nothing which will further distinguish its liturgical patrimony from the rest of the Byzantine Churches."

Fr. Elias,

From what I hear and read, they just did.

- - -

"As for "our bishop (n), loved by God" or a similar translation, I assert that this is not only equally awkward but, as some of our posters have pointed out, gives the wrong impression that God has some sort of special love for the hierarchy that is not enjoyed by the faithful or regular clergy."

Fr. Joe,

What bishop would want to include this wording "at the last minute" before submitting it to Rome? This assumption of this "special love" will only stand out like a sore thumb. It is a joke, almost like our senators including addendums to a bill at the last minute as a favor to benefit a particular group of people.

"The problem with such an "absolute" redaction of the Divine Liturgy, where there is no allowance whatsoever for variation according to time and place, ..."

Isn't this how rites were actually formed? Not a growth or diversification of such but a PRUNING BACK? Otherwise, we would have more than five major rites ... we would, in fact, have thousands.

- - -

To all,

What will happen to the Ordo Celebrationis? Is it now null and void? Wasn't this Ordo published by Rome to solve the problem of our bishops not being able to agree on one text? And then it was promulgated in our eparchies over several decades sporadically? Why must the wheel be reinvented so many times? Is it true that Rev. Professor Taft has approved over 20 liturgical texts for us over his career? For many years our priests were the cutting edge of liturgical reform way before any bishop tinkered with the liturgy or any Vatican congregation issued an Instruction. For they privately published pew books for liturgy and vespers (way before vespers was promoted) and marked them "for private (or parish) use only." In fact, I cannot help but notice how ALL our liturgical texts (Festal Menaion, Vesper Book, Matins Book, Lenten Triodion, and Pentecostarion) are all "private" publications, which have become the unofficial norm since we were given absolutely nothing official for so many years. I have countless cut-and-paste texts (a number from the West Coast) giving evidence how our priests were lightyears ahead of our hierarchs long before the typical pew parishioner ever heard of a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy. Where would our church be without all those private publications that got us through so many years when there was nothing? What makes us so sure that this "New Mass" will be received this time? Will there be Liturgy Police checking up on our clergy who ignore the changes? If so, where were the Liturgy Police for all those years? Some parishes are still using the Green and Gray Pew Books from the 1960s with instructions for High Mass, silent anaphoras, kneeling, and Filioque, thereby skipping all the other pew books published since. These were the only books sent to some of our missions. What a way to start a new mission - with someone's outdated confusion! Just my wonderings.

I am all for liturgical REform, but I would think that for a small church - and one getting smaller each year - that we put a five-year FREEZE on any liturgical rennovation until we get our ducks in a row. If liturgical reform is the ONLY area that we can act on independently as a Church, then Houston, we have a problem. Leadership is needed first, not time more spent rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. There are definitely some fatal leaks we have to deal with if we are to see land again. Liturgical changes will always get run throuh; canonical/particular law changes won't. 1929 always comes to mind for some reason, and I'm not thinking of the stock market crash. Otherwise, folks, we should start preparing the lifeboats. Women and children first. Our bishops, loved by God, last.


Joe

[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Friends,

What invaluable points you all make!

Why is it that I'm getting a sense that we have excellent liturgists at the lay and clerical levels, and hierarchs who seem to a) lack a solid grounding in liturgical theology b) commit failure after failure in bringing state-of-art Eastern liturgical principles to bear in the ongoing "improvement" of our liturgy and c) seem to be out of sync with the growing Eastern liturgical awareness currently gripping our laity?

As for improving the liturgy, who was it who made the telling comment "You've improved it worse?"

Bl. Basil Velichkovsky and a number of the other Byzantine New Martyrs adhered to a basic liturgical principle that involved simply taking the Orthodox liturgical texts and adding the commemoration of the Pope to them (but only once).

I think that principle just might break the liturgical logjam here, do you not think?

Bishops or no, our Church is in good hands with people like "youz guyz."

Alex