www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The New Liturgy

Dear Nik,

Talking about Ukrainian CAtholics and their success in any endeavour is never off-topic!

God bless!

Alex

Dear Lance et al;

I have not actually seen the new translation, but there are few things I would have done differently.

From what I've heard, the language of the commemmoration of the Bishops has been changed from "For our God loving Bishop N" to something like "For Our Bishop N, whom God loves"

This to me implies that the calling to the episcopate is a special favor given to them from God. Does God not love the rest of us? In my mind, the episcopacy is a position of responsibility, not favor.

There are a few minor rubrics that I find awkward (remember this is coming from a deacon). First, during the antiphons, since the litanies are not taken, it looks like the deacon is doing a little dance moving from the center, to the icon of Christ, to the Virgin, and back. There is no real purpose for this.

Secondly, the rubrics call for opening the doors at the very beginning, i.e. before the great litany. This makes some sense when the liturgy is done without a deacon. However, the use of the doors (curtains anyone!) takes on a more obvious symbolism when a deacon is present. For me, the closed doors remind us of our continued separation from the heavenly realm, the movement of the deacon, the opening and closing of the doors for the processions, and for the dissemination of the Body and Blood, add a certain drama to the liturgy.

With that said, there are things I do like very much. Removing the "Grant it O Lord" litanies is correct in my mind. Some of them merely duplicate other litanies (is God deaf?), but all seem to be an added concretion from Vespers.

(It is my hope that this liturgical revision is just the first step in the resuscitation of our authentic liturgical patrimony. The removal of the "Grant it O Lord" litanies makes sense only if Vespers is also celebrated.)

Taking the Anaphora aloud is also correct. These prayers are on behalf of all and should be heard by all.

But the thing I like the most about the revision is itself. Who says that the Orthodox are the yardstick by which the East is measured? A gem in the rough is still just a gem in the rough. If there is no irritation, if there is no human intervention, the potential is thwarted and the beauty remains hidden.

For what its worth,

John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Petrus:
[QB]Dear Lance et al;

>>>From what I've heard, the language of the commemmoration of the Bishops has been changed from "For our God loving Bishop N" to something like "For Our Bishop N, whom God loves"<<<

That's more accurate but awkward. A better, and still accurate rendering would have been "our God-beloved Bishop N.___", for that's what the oldest texts say: we commemorate the bishop, who is beloved by God (we hope!). It never quite made sense to me that we would commemorate our bishop, who loves God (well, at least we hope he does). So this is a proper restoration, just not a good translation.

>>>This to me implies that the calling to the episcopate is a special favor given to them from God. Does God not love the rest of us? In my mind, the episcopacy is a position of responsibility, not favor.<<<

Actually, it is in a position of service and of grace.

>>>There are a few minor rubrics that I find awkward (remember this is coming from a deacon). First, during the antiphons, since the litanies are not taken, it looks like the deacon is doing a little dance moving from the center, to the icon of Christ, to the Virgin, and back. There is no real purpose for this.<<<

I like pointless dancing. Besides, from a purely functional perpsective, what's the point of the various entrances and processions in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts? We take the Eucharist out of the Artophorion, move it to the Proskomide, then take it from the Proskomide and put it back on the Holy Table. Were it not for the mystagogical significance (and the fact that the artophorion was once on the Proskomide), it would make much better sense just to remove the Eucharist from the artophorion and leave it on the Holy Table.

>>>Secondly, the rubrics call for opening the doors at the very beginning, i.e. before the great litany. This makes some sense when the liturgy is done without a deacon. However, the use of the doors (curtains anyone!) takes on a more obvious symbolism when a deacon is present. For me, the closed doors remind us of our continued separation from the heavenly realm, the movement of the deacon, the opening and closing of the doors for the processions, and for the dissemination of the Body and Blood, add a certain drama to the liturgy.<<<

A good point, but there must always be a careful pastoral compromise between absolute fidelity to the rubrics and what has become common useage. Restoring authenticity takes time.

>>>With that said, there are things I do like very much. Removing the "Grant it O Lord" litanies is correct in my mind. Some of them merely duplicate other litanies (is God deaf?), but all seem to be an added concretion from Vespers.<<<

Sorry, but on this I do not agree. The petitions, particularly for a faithful account before the dread tribunal of Christ, is an important anodyne to what could easily become an exercise in self-glorification. As always in Byzantine liturgy, there is and should be a dynamic tension between joy in the Resurrection and recognition of our fallen estate.

>>>(It is my hope that this liturgical revision is just the first step in the resuscitation of our authentic liturgical patrimony. The removal of the "Grant it O Lord" litanies makes sense only if Vespers is also celebrated.)<<<

That is true, but I say anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

>>>Taking the Anaphora aloud is also correct. These prayers are on behalf of all and should be heard by all.<<<

Absolutely.

>>>But the thing I like the most about the revision is itself. Who says that the Orthodox are the yardstick by which the East is measured?<<<

The Ruthenians are a special case, since they preserved a pre-Nikonian Slavic recension not followed in most other Slavic lands. The 1942 Typical Edition was a magnificent work of liturgical scholarship, and is itself the yardstick against which both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn recensions should be judged. But the new liturgy is not a translation of the Typical Edition, rather an attempt to set up a new Typical Edition that differs from the authentic original published in 1942.

>>>A gem in the rough is still just a gem in the rough. If there is no irritation, if there is no human intervention, the potential is thwarted and the beauty remains hidden.<<<

It is important to remember that the Ruthenian Churches were never "imperial" in flavor, the way that the Russian or Greek Churches were.

Alex or anyone else,

"2) One of our parishes has adopted the new liturgical proposals of the Finnish Orthodox Church under Archbishop Paul - returning the kiss of peace, procession with the Gospel around the entire Church etc. What do you think of this?"

Is it possible that these changes will be made in the Ruthenian liturgy? If so I think they have potential for great good. How would they be instituted with pews in the way?

Dan Lauffer

Father Deacon John,

If'n you and your family should find yourself in Columbus some fine Sunday, you will find that the doors open & close just fine at the appropriate points during Liturgy. (So does the drape.....)

Unfortunately I fear that the elimination of the "Grant it O Lord" petitions will simply be that - an elimination. I strongly suspect that it will not lead to a revival of Vespers in parishes not inclined to do so. (*sigh*)

Nice talking to you and your lovely wife yesterday.

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

From what I've heard, the language of the commemmoration of the Bishops has been changed from "For our God loving Bishop N" to something like "For Our Bishop N, whom God loves"


Who would want it to read like that? The older version assumes that the bishop loves God, and this implies that he loves his neighbor too, especially those who he was/is entrusted to serve.

The newer version is ego-driven and turns the demand for love around. Pretty soon, the response, "Lord, have mercy," will be, "Bishop, have mercy."

Hi Joe,
You mean all this time we've been praying "Lord, have mercy!" we were not refering to My Lord,the Bishop.


BTW, you missed a great Pastoral Care practicum.

Bisantino Juan,

Usted es chistoso!

Era s�lo capaz de asistir la primera semana. Soy contento el segundo que uno fue bien.

Jose

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Joe,

But as Stuart pointed out, the original Greek/Slavonic reads: "our God-beloved Bishop N." The translators made a mistake when they translated it into: "God-loving." Returning to the original wording can hardly be described as ego-driven.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,

Is it "God loving bishop," "our God-beloved bishop," or "our bishop, whom God loves?"

Each means something different. "Beloved" means "dearly loved" so "our God-beloved bishop" is "our God-dearly loved bishop." Who is being loved? Is it a statement of God loving the bishop or the bishop loving God?

What translation is used in the Orthodox Church?

Dear Lance and Joe,

As liturgoholics, I thought I'd ask you this question.

Our new Ukie liturgy, O.K.'d by our Synod, ends the doxology with "the eternal ages" or "na viky vikiv."

Yet the older translation read "unto the ages of ages."

Our parishes are divided on this, some using the new version (including our Vladyka Cornelius) and others, including Daniil, the older version saying that that is the "correct" one.

I know we're in the middle of a garbage strike here in Toronto, but what is all the stink about on this matter?

Alex

There are actually two separate issues being discussed:

1. The revision of the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy (the order and method of the celebration) and
2. Changes in the translation of the text of the Divine Liturgy from the original Slavonic and Greek.

I will limit the scope of this post to the first question.


The Rubrics of the Celebration of the Divine Liturgy

A discussion of a possible revision of the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy needs to start with several questions:

1. What is the reason for considering a revision to the rubrics? (i.e., What is broken that needs fixing?)
2. What is the perspective of those who are recommending a revision of the rubrics? (i.e., What is the mindset of those recommending such a revision?)
3. What is the nature of the proposed revision? (i.e., Is it to restore something lost or to improve on our inheritance from our Ruthenian (close history) and Byzantine (longer history) spiritual ancestors?


It is my considered opinion that the order and method of the Ruthenian celebration of the Divine Liturgy isn�t broke and that is not in need of revision. We inherit some wonderful and unique Ruthenian liturgical customs that are in no way un-Byzantine. In fact, many of our Ruthenian customs are more authentic than the modern Greek and Russian customs (reflecting, as Stuart pointed out, that we missed out on many of the Nikonian reforms). Our use of the Paschal Antiphons (�Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth�.�) on Sundays is the traditional usage of the Church of Constantinople while the use of the Typical Psalms (�Bless the Lord, O my soul�.�) is more recent and of Palestinian origin is one example that comes quickly to mind.

But these examples obscure the point I wish to make because the proposed changes to the rubrics do not appear to be merely a restoration to a more perfect Ruthenian usage but rather a wholesale undoing of a thousand years of liturgical development that has been accepted as valid by the entire Byzantine Christian world (question 3 above). Since I do not see any reason for a wholesale revision of the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy I cannot provide an answer to the first question and invite others to provide their thoughts. It is my opinion that we need to celebrate our liturgical inheritance as we have received it (i.e., restore it, minus the latinizations) and that is not in need of the wholesale revision of the type that is being proposed. One could also argue that, even if one could justify a revision of the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy, one should wait until all of Orthodoxy is ready for such a revision rather than doing it unilaterally.

This brings us to the question of the mindset of those recommending such a revision. From my perspective, if the current rubrics of the Divine Liturgy as currently mandated in some of our eparchies is an example of the proposed liturgical revisions, then those who are proposing these revisions do not have a Byzantine Christian mindset but rather a Latin Christian mindset.

Why do I say this? Because one of the most obvious revisions to the liturgy is the taking aloud of many of the prayers of the priest which are now (in all of the other Byzantine Churches) generally taken quietly by the priests. I submit that the mandatory taking aloud of the prayers of the Anaphora is the verbal equivalent of removing the icon screen so that the people can see the action of the clergy in the sanctuary. If one begins to take all of the secret prayers aloud in order that the people may hear and better understand the Mystery than it logically follows that one should also remove the icon screens so that they can see and better understand. This is nothing less than yet another major latinization! We need to restore a fuller and more complete cycle of Divine Services before we can begin to understand the richness of our inheritance and the wisdom of our Byzantine fathers.

Only when our Church has restored a more full and complete cycle of Divine Services will be begin to understand the richness of our inheritance.

We should be allowing the Divine Liturgy to reform our lives rather than allowing ourselves to reform the Divine Liturgy.

Admin,

Excellent post.


Seems to me that in addition, there is a debate amongst the theological elite as to when the mythical "golden age" was. The notion (that I heard with respect to one area that was being tweaked) that something was an innovation because it was added in the ***8th CENTURY*** sounds a little bit nuts to me. Liturgy is a living, organic thing.


Sharon

Hear! Hear!

Couldn't have said it better...

Michael

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Sarum ]

These have been some thought-provoking posts!

My experience to the Divine Liturgy has been restricted to that which is celebrated in the Eparchy of Van Nuys and Ss Cyril & Methodius Seminary of which are celebrated identically. In fact, aside from some translations, we have been celebrating the revised Liturgy for some time. For those of you think the Liturgy is being shortened, our Liturgy lasts over an hour (About an hour fifteen or twenty), and that is with my assisting with distribution of the Eucharist (180+ communicants).

Someone had mentioned the Petitions of Offering (response "Grant it, O Lord!") and their elimination from the Divine Liturgy. Fr Deacon John does not see their fit in the Divine Liturgy, nor do I, since they begin with "Let us complete our prayer to the Lord". But we are certainly not completing our prayer at this point. Perhaps it needs to be inserted before the dismissal if at all. We must remember that parts, such as the repititive litanies, were added to the Liturgy to provide a "cover" while the priest prayed quietly. With a number of prayers now completely taken aloud, there is no need for the "cover".

I personally prefer the complete prayer being taken aloud, as opposed to the silent prayer with just the doxology taken aloud. Of course the only reason the doxology was taken aloud was to let the cantors know when to resume. IMO, silent prayer can lead to abuse in the form of the prayer not being prayed at all by the priest, so that Divine Liturgy can be hurried along.

The anaphoras are chock full of Scripture and recall the "mighty acts of God" for our salvation, and it would be a shame not to have these proclaimed so that we may better understand what sacred drama is unfolding before us. IMHO, the prayer befor the Gospel should be taken aloud.

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]