www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology When does the fast end and the feast begin?

I disagree with djs� two principles. No local Church within Byzantium has the right to modify what is the property of the whole. One can see this principle at work across Orthodoxy. There are minor differences between the recensions that grew up over centuries. No local Church is doing a re-write of the liturgical rubrics. This is because they know that they don�t have the right to do so. It is not a matter of denigrating �our church by jumping onto a slipper slope of forfeiting its rights�. It is a matter of arrogantly assuming that we have the right to unilaterally modify what belongs to all.

Which Orthodox jurisdiction has mandated changes to the Divine Liturgy? Which has prohibited the traditional celebration of the Divine Services? The fact that some are experimenting here and there is not a justification to mandate it. You really can�t use the foundation that no one has been excommunicated for an experimental practice as justification to mandate said practice. You can�t get away from the fact that these types of changes are still very controversial across Orthodoxy (and mostly unknown outside the United States).

Given your lament that someone in our Church should use music that comes from outside the Ruthenian chant tradition I find you to be the one holding a strange opinion. It is odd that someone who holds such a conservative opinion on liturgical music (of which there are many schools in the Church) should be so liberal in liturgical texts and rubrics (of which we have kept together with all the Churches of Byzantium fairly uniformly all these centuries). Essentially you are stating that what belongs to all we have the right to change but what belongs to us alone we cannot change.

I don�t consider these revisions to be trivial. Since you do, and seemingly many who support them do, why not just abandon them altogether? If you are right, and world Orthodoxy will soon mandate them, why not wait until they are mandated?

Certainly the work of the restoration of Vespers and Matins is not dependant upon changes you consider trivial! After Msgr. Levkulic, I have been producing most of the books used in our Church for these services. The 'received tradition' has been very well received!

Regarding �ancestor worship�, I don�t remember ever using the term. Since I have never argued that liturgy should never change I�m not sure how this applies to me in this discussion. I have been very clear to argue that what is the property of the whole can only be modified by the whole. I simply don�t understand why people are unwilling to work together with all of Byzantine Orthodoxy on liturgical renewal (or reform). I also don�t understand the hurry to reform. I have been very consistent in my call. We should restore the Divine Services as we have received them (as documented in the books our bishops asked Rome to prepare for us). Only when our Church lives the Divine Services for a generation or two will we as Church have the intimacy with these services to work with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy to lovingly make any changes (should some be deemed necessary).

Well stated! While I know parishes that can no longer justify two Divine Liturgies on Christmas the order of the services is very traditional and within the �received tradition�.

How much of your kolachi survived until Saint Nicholas made his visit?

Not much, as my new 5 pounds to the waistline will attribute. Besides, I secretly think Santa is a Rusyn and enjoys the mushroom/sauerkraut soup (Kozati) better!

Also commonly known as "Machanka".

x.p.1 c.e.!

Ungcseretezs

Muchadlo in Mal'cov.

Wrong. Autocepaholous churches have the right. Prudenct exercise of the right, among other things, is what has determined the history observed. Besides, those rewrites do involve changes to the property of whole. You just term the ones you accept as "minor" by subjective criteria.

On topic. We were talking about the option of doing evening vesperal liturgies. That same option has been allowed in some EO jurisdictions; others have criticized the practice in the strongest terms, but have not broken communion with those who allow it.

It is your reading that is odd; it is stuck on outcome-based arguments rather than principle-based ones.

I do have, stricly-speaking, a conservative view of the music. Simply, it is singularly up to us to conserve it, since no one else has an proprietary interest in it. I would hate to see it lost, and it's really up to us to prevent that loss. But as I stated clearly, we have every right as a Church to discard it and pick-up other music, or compse new music from scratch. There are just reasonable reasons not do that. The idea that we don't have the right to do it, however, is specious.

I don't know how you can suggest that I am liberal in texts and rubrics, unless by liberal you consider anyone who disagrees with your argument - independent of one's position. I have criticized pedestrian language but have not expressed much personal preference (I did argue for "man" vs. "mankind" and against "Brothers" at the Epistle).

I don't think it is liberal to accept with well-deserved humilty the leadership of one's Bishops, and to try to work to make that leadership successful. Some may think that they, without benefit of the charism of office, really know better, and seem to work to aggravate division. That's conservative? Who knows, what is liberal and conservative these days?

Bishop Tikhon has on-line a lovely essay on why evening vesperal liturgies are not authorized in his diocese. It is strongly argued. It, of course, does not say: we can't do this until ROCOR, or the Antiochians do - let alone because of something the Pope said. Or that we are a little church and should only follow the lead of the big churches. No. He argues about what what tradition is and why it should be treasured, and most importantly what is fitting and efficacious for the salvation of souls.

I cannot speak for others. But as I said above, I am happy to work in the vineyards with whatever tools are provided by the overseers appointed by God.

And this commitment includes the music. I think the music-change in the 60-70's introduced much inferior stuff. I did the best I could with it, sang it, taught it, doctored it here and there. And after all that, I am happy to see it go, for reasons of musical quality as well as musical authenticity. Not specious reasons that in effect abrogate our rights and demean as second class. (Which I note that you seem all too happy to do with civil rights as well. That is not conservative!).

Ultimately, whether the music (text, rubric) project is pursued or abandonded, there will be an abundance with which to advance the salvation of souls.

Actually you only disagreed with one. I would be surpised that you would also argue against the point that we should try to avoid bad decisions.

djs,

Thanks for your post. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. A sui iuris Church has plenty of rights, but the revision of the Divine Liturgy (the property of the larger Byzantine Church) is not one of them.

Regarding my accepting some changes that I like as �minor� by subjective criteria, I don�t believe I have done so. I have been very consistent in calling for a painstakingly accurate translation of texts and rubrics for all our official service books. Other than the use of English (with the idea of the vernacular being exampled to us by SS Cyril & Methodius) I have advocated no changes to the official books whatsoever. What I have advocated is that if someday change should be considered it should be considered at the proper level (things common to the entire Byzantine Church should be addressed by the whole Church, those common to the Ruthenian recension should be addressed at the recension level and those unique to our Church at that level).

And yes, it was your first principle I disagree with. I should have been clearer.

Regarding the �option of doing evening vesperal liturgies�, we are actually talking about something more. In the Passaic Eparchy parishes are now forbidden to celebrate the Holy Week Services according to the received customs (the Vesper-Divine Liturgies in the mornings on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, the Strasti (Twelve Gospels) on Thursday evening, etc.). What is presented as an option this year will be required next year. If we look at the mandated changed rubrics for the Divine Liturgy already in effect in some eparchies we can see that the traditional, full form of the Divine Services will soon be outlawed. If you wish, look at this as �creeping revisionism�.

Thank you for this clarification. Your earlier statements seemed to indicate that we had the right to change the Liturgy however we wished but not the liturgical music. We are in agreement on this point. I have long argued that we have no mandate to preserve Ruthenian Chant but that, for the most part, it works well in the American context (much better than other chant styles IMHO) and has proven useful (and someday will be replaced like the Slavs replaced the Greek Chant).

Regarding the �conservative� and �liberal� terms I have stated that they are not the best. Yet I don�t know of others that work. I do consider you to be liberal in texts and rubrics because you have argued that we can do pretty much whatever we want with the liturgy. That is far closer to the general definition of �liberal� than it is to the definition of �conservative�. You also argued in favor of the use of inclusive language, as if it were a given that we needed to embrace it as simply good English. In that context you have either embraced or reluctantly accepted the liberal feminist politics that are at play in our society. For me, a conservative approach would be to simply accurately translate the texts, making sure not to assume masculine terms where none existed in the original and introducing no changes. I would argue that �traditional� is probably a better word to describe my position yet I don�t know the corresponding term to describe yours (and �untraditional� would not be accurae!).

Regarding accepting �with well-deserved humility the leadership of one�s Bishops, and to try to work to make that leadership successful�, I�m not sure what you mean. Are you accusing me of aggregating division because I advocate keeping our Ruthenian liturgical traditions as they are documented in the official books? Why do you not also accuse those who are advocating change of aggregating division? After all, if they were not advocating revising the Liturgy it would be far easier to work towards the goal of renewing the Liturgy according to the official books our earlier bishops asked Rome to prepare.

I�m glad you are happy to work in the vineyards with whatever tools are provided by the overseers appointed by God. Although we seem to disagree on many things, I know you are arguing for what you believe to be right. I also see myself and all those who support restoring an authentic Ruthenian liturgical tradition and living it as working in the vineyards. I hope you will consider this as a possibility.

Admin

No, I have not. I have only argued that when inclusive language is the best translation into vernacular English, it should be used; and that when it isn't, it shouldn't. I contrast this with rejection of any use at all, which, as your post suggests yet again, is often grounded in extraneous political issues, rather than on issues of good translation.

I am concerned that you may be, however inadvertantly. I think the problem is especially grave when the arguments devolve into tendentiousness, and when labels are used to draw up sides.

They have been given authority to undertake their work by their Bishops.

IMO, whatever one's viewpoint on these matters, arguments about what is good for the church and the salvation of souls, are far more likely to be persuasive and effective than the divisive use of labels, or challenges to the authority of the Bishops and those appointed by them. I think this position is also the conservative one, FWIW.

Strictly speaking, a sui juris Catholic church will not be able to undertake such revisions without a sign-off by Rome. I think that is it, however. But as we discussed in the context of HRM, it may not be entirely clear - certainly not to us - what rights sui juris status actually grants. I think that it is very important that we don't forfeit this status by atrophy, but use it - even though we may make some mistakes. I think there is enormous ecumenical value in sui juris churches acting as such.

I�m glad for this clarification. In earlier threads you seemed to argue that that inclusive language is part of current, standard English and not going with the current flow is part of a political agenda.

You also seem to misunderstand my position. I have been consistent in asking for translations that are accurate. If the word in the original is man then use man. If the word in the original is not �man� but an equivalent of �people�, then use �people� (I have never suggested otherwise). Inclusive language is, as a method and in this context of translations, the purposeful effort to render a gender free translation. Such an effort is at odds with accurate translation. If you wish to redefine inclusive language as accuracy then I will not argue the point. But that�s not what it means in our society (and there is no denying that a secularist, feminist agenda exists in our country and that it is attempting to influence language). This is also why Rome rejected the NRSV (the inclusive language edition) for Catholic use and has prohibited the Catholic bishops from publishing a Bible made from the RNAB (multi-revised but purposefully using inclusive language). But if you want to label my consistent calls for accuracy of translations free from any special effort towards or against gender language a political agenda go right ahead. You�d be wrong but you can certainly do it.

This seems to be nothing more than an effort to stifle a position you don�t agree with. You really should consider those who have introduced this argument into our Church to at least equally be at fault (if not more), especially when we see the havoc it has caused in the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches?

Yes, and? Are you suggesting that they have no obligation to explain their direction, how it meshes with Vatican directives on renewal of liturgy and translations? Or that we have no right to ask and actually be given this information? Or that we have not right to either ask questions, make suggestions or speak about these things? Or that the bishops have spoken with finality on this matter? Or that we have no right of appeal to Rome should we honestly consider them to be wrong on this issue? Is getting along nicely really more important than doing what is right?

On this we agree, although we differ on that I believe that the Liturgy is not something a sui iuris Church can modify.

Then I think we do agree on principle. Of course, people may ultimately differ, on what word best captures the meaning in the orignal text. I have pointed to Fr. Taft's characterization of the political motives of others as over the top for my taste. But I do find it interesting that it's hard to discuss translations without people bringing in "the feminists" with their whole agenda...

No. I think discussion of the issues are warranted. What I would in fact like to stifle is argumentation that is more divisive than cogent.

Of course they do... to their Bishop. And the Bishop has the responsibility for intelligently leading his flock. And again, there a many lines of argument that could be persuasive and fraternal, but the idea that they have we have no right, or worse, no intellectual capacity (small church), to do it, just don't carry water, and might very well exhaust the interest of those you would like to persuade.

djs,

Thanks for your post.

Yes, we seem to agree on principle.

I do not think that it possible to discuss translations without addressing the inclusive language issue and the agenda of the feminists. A quick look at some of the hard and excellent work done by the Sisters of St Basil in publishing liturgical texts can identify that in some places they simply went through texts in replacing every masculine reference with a natural one. Now I don�t believe that anyone involved in the preparation of those most useful books has bought into the secular, feminist agenda. But I do think that some have inadvertently taken up their conclusions on some issues, including those of translation. That�s why we need to identify it for what it is, if only to get it out of the way.

I agree that there are many lines of argument that could be persuasive and fraternal.

I disagree that we have the right to revise the Divine Services.

I agree that the intellectual capacity to do such a thing exists in our Church. My review of the proposed texts shows some excellent clarifications in translation (which I have commented on) as well as some major steps in the wrong direction. I would hope that the bishops would direct the commission to revisit the translations, to direct them to make only the changes that are absolutely required to make the translations accurate (as well as keeping traditional rubrics). My guess is that this step towards accuracy would not require a lot of work and would remove from our Church the whole discussion of inclusive language which has bogged down the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches.

Thanks again for your post.

"This is also why Rome rejected the NRSV (the inclusive language edition) for Catholic use and has prohibited the Catholic bishops from publishing a Bible made from the RNAB (multi-revised but purposefully using inclusive language)."

A clarification:

The NRSV is published in a Catholic Edition with an Imprimatur. It was rejected for use as a lectionary text in the Latin Church, but an indult was given for Canada to use it as their lectionary text temporarily. The Maronite Eparchies in the US do use the NRSV as their lectionary text.

The RNAB is published and is fact is the only NAB version one can currently purchase. Only the New Testament and Pslams are revised so far, work continues on the OT. Again the RNAB was rejected for lectionary use without modification. The Pslams were rejected outright. The Grail Psalms, original version, continue as the officail Psalms translation for the Liturgy of the Hours in the US, the original NAB Pslams for the Mass. The New Testament was modified and this version is the current lectionary text for the Latin Church in the US. However, the modified Revised New Testament is only published as a Lectionary not as part of a Bible. The result US Catholics cannot buy a Bible that matches their lectionary.

I note that the modified RNAB retains some inclusive language.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Lance,

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, the NRSV is authorized for the RC lectionary in Canada but not for the United States. I have a copy of the Catholic edition so it is definitely approved for personal reading.

I�ve called the version currently used in the RC lectionary in the United States as the �RNAB� (which you cannot currently buy anywhere as a Bible) but perhaps that is not the correct acronym. Do you know what they are calling this amended RNAB? Perhaps the RARNAB? The acronyms are going to kill us!

Do you have any references to the official Vatican directives on this? A friend of mine who is an RC priest told me that there is a move to scrap the current lectionary and replace it with one based upon the RSV (or the ESV). I�d be interested to read more on this.

Admin

Admin,

Yes, RNAB would not be correct as the text was modified so that it could be used in the lectionary. I usually see it refered to as the modified or corrected RNAB. Again this modified text is only available in the lectionary. The RNAB one can purchase in the store is the original unmodified RNAB.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I like that! The Unmodified Revised New American Bible!