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

Everyone here has certainly made some salient points, but perhaps the most keen observation was made outside these posts:

"There are two words you cannot say from the amvon. The first is ***k, and the second is change."

Change (or reform, restoration, renewal) is always hard for us to accept. Why is this so? Perhaps we are comfortable with the Liturgy the way it is celebrated. IMHO, in discussing the finer details of the proposed liturgy, we can avoid discussing much larger issues.

Isn't this the work of the Holy Spirit, who is expressing the faith to a new generation of believers?

Dave Brown began this thread by quoting from the Instruction. Article 19 in part says, " 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 lenghthy experimentation, intense historical studies, critical textual analyses, theological studies, biblical studies, and pastoral studies, culminating in the work of individual and committee reserch, both and the local and international level..."

The fact that the Oriental Congregation (ie, Fr Taft) gave approval to the Liturgy must signal that these guidelines were followed. One need only to look at the composition of the IELC. Not only are the members qualified in the various fields, but they are actively involved in parish work, and for some seminarian formation, and not just academic experts.

Until his death, Fr William Levkulic was member of the IELC, and was one of those liturgical "trail-blazers" who privately published numerous liturgical books. I know this is probably no one's intention but some of the criticism ("that desire to get Liturgy down to 50 minutes") seems to portray the IELC as an evil cabal. In recent eparchial newspapers Fr David Petras'(an IELC member) column actually criticizes the shortened liturgy proposal by relating the story of an experience he had abroad in Europe. I imagine a number of you read the story.

Perhaps, what is needed is for Fr David to devote some time in his column to the work of the IELC. This could be done after the promulgation of the liturgy, but prior to its implementation. Perhaps something similar to Bugnini's The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 can be done, but on a much smaller scale for the eparchial newspaper audience.

Dear Bisantino,

Actually, with these proposed new changes, the former term you allude to might just become more accepted . . .

Alex

Dear Joe,

But why don't you Ruthenians do what we Ukies do?

Our bishops present us with a new liturgical translation "unto the eternal ages" and all that and many of our parishes choose to ignore it.

Parishes such as St Elias in Brampton also do things that while fully traditional would make other parishes blink.

Alex

Some observations on this debate:
1) The text posted is not the final text. In fact, there is no final text, until the process is completed and approved by the Archbishop together with the Council of Hierarchs. At the same time, certain paramenters have been established from the work of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission and from the prescriptions included in the decree of approbation from Rome.
2) I firmly believe that what has been done is the best pastoral solution for us today. It will improve the liturgical life of the vast majority of our parishes, if followed. Nothing has been done in violation of liturgical principles. Please note that I myself do not necessarily believe that the best decision has been made on all the points raised, but as someone pointed out, the Liturgy is not an individual thing. The bishop(s) is the one entrusted to set the norms of the Church.
3) To get all jurisdictions and churches to agree on one English translation and format is certainly an ideal to be strived for, but is it absolutely necessary? To let down my guard for a minute, I suspect that on some computer forum in the year 3002, this issue will probably still be debated. That we do nothing that the Orthodox don't do is also an ideal to be worked for. It raises many questions, however. Which Orthodox??? Synodal??? OCA???? Greek??? The Patriarch Nicon in the 17th century tried to make the Russian Church conform with the Greek. In reality, and this is my opinion, we have to act, with the best information we have, for the best pastoral good of the people we serve. Nothing that we have done, by the way, is something that has not been discussed and practiced in some Orthodox jurisdiction.
4) The reception of the Church is certainly essential. If the people will not receive the Liturgy, we will have empty churches. So this is important. The problem with a wide consultation is, however, that Liturgy is very conservative. There simply will be a vast majority opposition to any liturgical change before the process even begins. By this, I don't mean we should force things down people's throats, it won't happen in any case. I do hope people will give it a chance. There are two problems in my estimation: 1) no form of the Liturgy, except maybe for the latinized liturgy formulated by the Synod of Lviv in 1890 has ever been widely received, and even the Metropolitan Andrew Szeptytskyj didn'�t receive that Liturgy - leading eventually to the editions of the Sacred oriental Congregation in the 1940's. Today in our parishes, there is a variety of "styles," and I don't see that ending in the near future; 2) there is a need for "reform" in the Liturgy. "Reform" is not a curse word, it means a return to the traditional foundations. Over the centuries, the Byzantine Liturgy has drifted from its Christian foundations in many ways, one of which I will mention in the next paragraph. If you don't believe that the Byzantine Church reforms, read Thomas Potts' "La reforme liturgique byzantine," (Rome, 2000). Much of this comes from bad experiences with the reform of the Roman rite. I myself have no doubt that the Tridentine Roman Liturgy needed reform, it did not respond to the needs of the people, but I believe the bad effects have come from other influences, such as the pressure to turn Liturgy into entertainment.
5) I won't discuss all of the points raised, but there is one aspect of the Liturgy that I will defend to my death - that is, that the prayers of the priest must be restored aloud for the people's hearing. I think this is a deformation of the Liturgy that arose from the reactionary impulse to never change the texts of prayers while the vernacular language changed. That is, the modern Greeks do not understand liturgical Greek, just as modern Slavs do not understand Church Slavonic, and modern Italians do not understand Latin, so the prayers slipped into silence. On this point, see my article, "The Public Recitation of the Presbyteral Prayers," in Eastern Church Journal, Summer, 2001, pages 97-106, as well as the articles, in the same issue, by Panagiotis Trembelas and Robert Taft. The people say "Amen" to these prayers and have the right and obligation to know the words. Our Liturgy is a "wordy sacrifice" (Greek, latreia logike; Slav, slovesnaja sluzhba), and without the words, we are not Christian, and may as well sacrifice bulls and goats.

This is what I feel strongly on. I would be willing, within the limits of time, to discuss other concerns or issues with an open mind.

Father David,
Has it ever been a consideration of the Council of Hierarchs, the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission, et al., to just adhere to what the Subcarpathian Ruthenian Church did? After all, we are NOT Russians, we are NOT Greeks, we are NOT OCA or any other Orthodox. By and large, the "Johnstown Diocese" does not follow this tradition too faithfully either, for example, their newer churches' altars resemble Greek or Russian ones and not the type of Ruthenian altar described in Ordo Celebrationis.

Our Typikon should be that of Mykyta, purged of Latinizations. Our rubrics should follow our own venerable customs and not somebody else's. Otherwise, if our own way is not good enough, then we might as well just join their churches and get the real thing.

Father Joseph Hanulya of blessed memory wrote an outstanding English-language overview of the Carpatho-Rusyn (Subcarpathian) liturgical tradition in his book The Eastern Ritual. His work, considering when it was written (in the 1940s, during a time of rising latinization) is remarkable for its "purity". For example, it even prescribed the curtain across the Royal Doors as a standard appointment of the ikonostas.

John Montalvo wrote:


I apologize if my comment about abbreviating the Liturgy was perceived as an attempt to portray IELC as an "evil cabal." That was not my intention at all. I did not see the story you are referring to John. I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

I have said that I see no problem with taking some prayers traditionally said silently aloud. Certainly that is no innovation by the Ruthenian Church. I also fully understand the variety that exists in the Byzantine liturgical tradition. The Ruthenian tradition is not the same as the Russian tradition nor the Greek tradition, etc., etc. Having said that, most of the Liturgy is the same between the various rescensions.

So, as I understand the Liturgical Instruction there is plenty of valid reasons for the Ruthenian Church to maintain its special inheritance. And there are reasons for the Ruthenian Church to have liturgical renewal and reform. The Instruction stated:


Before we should "update" we need to rediscover full fidelity to our own liturgical tradition. Have we as a Church done that? I think we've come a long way. On some points we are still in transition, aren't we? It is laudable that the proposed New texts restore the "zeon" and finally print the Creed in the traditional Eastern form. I would still like to see the traditional Eastern practices of prosphora and antidoron restored in our Churches, however.

Again, the Instruction:


We all know Ruthenians are not Russians or Greeks, etc. But, what precedents are there for an entire Church to remove entire litanies that no Orthodox Church has yet done? I'm not talking about the Litany for the Catechumens and I realize that some litanies are only used once in some jurisdictions. But, what jurisdiction has mandated the removal of the petitions which contain the "Grant it, O Lord" prayers? I also think it would be good for our people to hear the "little litany" at least once in the Liturgy. True, there is discussion by some scholars about various abbreviations (and to some extent this is done already in some jurisdictions) but has anyone attempted this yet (at least on the scale of the proposed New Liturgy)? Why should we be the first?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

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

Welcome, Fr. David, to this discussion.

I disagree strongly that these changes are the best pastoral solution for us. First, there is no problem with the liturgy that we have inherited so there is no need for a solution. The liturgy is not in need of reform. It is we who should be allowing the liturgy to reform our lives. Second, many of what are considered to be issues of the varying styles of liturgical customs currently found in our Church can be effectively dealt with simply by encouraging our priests to follow the rubrics of the current (1964) liturgicon, which is very faithful to our Ruthenian inheritance. I do agree with Fr. David that if the people do not receive the liturgy there will be empty churches. Our people tend not to argue but simply disappear to other parishes, mostly Roman Catholic. When the new Presanctified rubrics were implemented here in the Passaic Eparchy several years ago I saw the participation by the people in my parish drop by almost half because the liturgy, in their words, was so different it no longer seemed theirs.

I agree that the prayers belong to the people. I disagree that it automatically follows that these words must be taken aloud. The words belong to the people. That the people do not hear, that they do not see, does not mean that the liturgy is not theirs. They understand what is happening and fully give their assent. By this argument the icon screen should be moved and the altar turned around since if the people have the right to hear they have the right to see. By reciting the prayers aloud the priest appropriates them to himself as his prayer to which the people must passively listen. If the prayer is silent it belongs equally to every member of the congregation and no single member of the assembly is imposing his own dramatic rendering or speech or interpretation upon the prayer. It belongs to each person in his or her heart to join in the action to call to call upon the Holy Spirit to pray for this awesome change. Once the prayer is taken aloud the people become simply passive listeners to the action of the priest. He imposes his dramatic rendering, personal interpretation and emphases upon the words of the anaphora and they become his prayer, a priestly prayer, a clerical prayer. In silence the people pray in union with this solemn action, undistracted and undisturbed by the clerical usurping of this solemn moment. The people can call upon the Holy Spirit. The whole congregation can call forth God to effect the wondrous change upon the Holy Table, whereby the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. In silence they share fully in the action of prayer. The key point, which is not explained by those seeking to mandate the taking aloud of these prayers, is why the prayers, when spoken aloud, are more theirs. In fact, I believe that they are less the peoples because they have been assumed entirely by the clerical celebrant at the Holy table. When he takes them aloud I feel robbed of my opportunity to join in this awesome moment.

But what if those who demand that these prayers be taken aloud are correct? The current liturgical rubrics do not prevent priests from taking aloud these prayers. Those priests who wish to do so are free to take them aloud. If, in 2 or 3 generations, it has become the standard and accepted custom, we will know that it is the correct thing to do.

Dave Ignatius,

The use of the zeon (warm water) is part of the 1964 edition of the liturgicon and has always been the expected norm (even if forgotten by most). The new liturgical rubrics do not restore it.

1. We did not need a revision of the Divine Liturgy just to restore the use of the Zeon or to move the ablutions to their more traditional position on the Byzantine liturgy. The simply way to restore these was for the bishops to set the example and teach it in the seminary. In a generation it would have been the norm.

2. The Ruthenian Church is a Church of Slavic origin. The use of "It is proper and just to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in substance and undivided" is the traditional Slavic usage and not in need of being revised.

Dear Fr. Petras,

I am no expert, just a complete “amateur”, when it comes to our liturgy. But if you, or the liturgical commision, will undertake to write about these changes, here is one area that I would like to see addressed.

I understand the problems that many have in making a change to take some of the formerly secret prayers of the liturgy aloud, but am not as distubed by the idea (provided the prayers are chanted - our way - not spoken). The sense I get of it, is that the anaphora, and prayers that lead to a concluding hymn or response from the people, are prayers of all of us.

But some of the new inclusions seem more like private exchanges between deacon and priest and do not lead to a concluding hymn or response from the people.

Specifically:

Before the epistle:

"DEACON: Father, command.
PRIEST: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.
DEACON: Father, bless the throne.
PRIEST: Blessed are You on the throne of the glory of Your kingdom, enthroned upon the Cherubim, always, now and ever, and forever.

Before the great entrance

DEACON: Lift up, Father.
Placing the large veil on the deacon's left shoulder the priest says:
PRIEST: Lift up your hands to the holy things, and bless the Lord.

After the great entrance

PRIEST: Remember me brother and fellow celebrant.
DEACON: May the Lord God remember your priesthood in His kingdom.
PRIEST: Pray for me my fellow celebrant.
DEACON: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.
PRIEST: May the Spirit
DEACON: Remember me, father.
PRIEST: May the Lord God remember you in His kingdom, always, now and ever, and forever.
DEACON (quietly): Amen.

Communion

DEACON: Father, break the holy bread.
The priest reverently breaks the Lamb into four parts and says:
PRIEST: Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God, broken yet not divided, ever eaten yet never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake thereof.
DEACON: Father, fill the holy chalice
The priest taking the IC particle, makes the Sign of the Cross with it over the chalice and placing it in it saying:
PRIEST: The fullness of the Holy Spirit.
The deacon presents the warm water saying:
DEACON: Father, bless the warm water.
The priest blesses it saying:
PRIEST: Blessed be the fervor of your saints, always, now and ever and forever. Amen.
The deacon pours it into the chalice in the form of a cross saying:
DEACON: The fervor of the faith, full of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
PRIEST: Deacon, approach!
DEACON: Father, give me the precious and holy body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.
PRIEST: The presious and holy and most pure body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to Deacon N., for the remission of his sins and for life everlasting.
Priest takes the Holy Eucharist, saying:
PRIEST: The precious and most holy body of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, is given to me, Priest N., for the remission of my sins and life everlasting. Amen.
…
PRIEST: I the servant of God, Priest N., partake of the precious and Holy Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the remission of my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
He wipes his lips, and the edge of the chalice with the towel and says:
PRIEST: Behold, this has touched my lips, and shall take away my iniquities, and shall cleanse my sins.
PRIEST: Deacon approach!
DEACON: Behold, I approach the immortal king and our God. Give me, Father, the precious and holy blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.
PRIEST: The servant of god, Deacon N., partakes of the precious and holy blood of our Lord and God and Savior jesus Christ, for the remission of his sins and for life everlasting.
PRIEST: Behold, this has touched your lips, and shall take away your iniquities, and shall cleanse your sins."

The question: what specific criteria and norms informed the decision to take these particular parts (and any of the other parts, for that matter) aloud.

djs

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

DJS,

The parts you mention are taken in a low voice. They must be said so the deacon and priest can hear one another but not so as to disturb what the congregation is singing. Again I apologize I should have designated more clearly.

In Christ,
Lance

A tangent, but not wholly off-subject:


Or perhaps a Slavic church of Greek origin.
Does anyone know where we picked of the final phrase, when it first appeared? Or is it something that the Greeks dropped post Sts. C&M? Does this tell us something about our historical connections to Constantinople/Kiev/Moscow/...?

djs

The parts you mention are taken in a low voice.

Lance,
Thank you. I am so very pleased to hear this.

djs

ABSOLUTELY!

Holy Father Basil, New Martyr, pray to God for us!

(and help us to follow your example!)