www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Our liturgical tradition- a response

I�m more an eirenic type personality myself, and would rather find agreements than disagreements, but some things in your March 10 post seem to require comment. I do think we have one common goal: the true renewal and restoration of our Eastern heritage, but dramatically different ways of achieving that.

You wrote,
�I don�t see the role of the deacon and priest to be confused at all in the traditional Liturgy.� (Quotes are from the Administrators posting of March 10 in the thread" News concerning ... "

What do you mean by the �traditional liturgy?� Common practice or the book? If the Liturgy is celebrated with a deacon, the public role of the priest is to say doxologies and to give blessings. Some of our older and older-minded priests complain about having deacons - precisely because it robs them of their parts.! With no deacon, the priest takes over litanies and incensations, which then become the bulk of his role. The presbyteral role, however, is properly to say the prayers in the name of the community.

�The faithful have the same access to the core reason for the Liturgy whether the presbyteral prayers are prayed aloud for their hearing or quietly.�

This is simply nonsense. The people�s role is hymn of glorification. The deacon�s role is petitions of intercession. The presbyteral prayers are the heart of the Liturgy. A congregation singing hymns cannot have a liturgy. A congregation led by a deacon cannot have a liturgy. The priest is necessary because he says the prayers that constitute the sacrifice, which the people affirm by their �amen.� Can it be, as one poster questioned, that we have been doing it wrong for 1500 years? The problem is not that the presbyteral role disappeared but that it became silent, and it became silent because the language changed and was no longer understood - or easily understood - by the people. And yes, this can happen - though probably actually not as long, since there is evidence (as in the Protheoria) that prayers were said aloud and late as the eleventh century. What�s a few hundred years here and there between friends! (Aside - maybe the reason Greek prayers did not change is because so much of them is based directly on Scripture, to change the text of the prayers would have meant to modify Scripture.)
If we went to a Shakespeare play and the director announced to the audience, �We have no one to play the role of Juliet today, but you all know the part anyhow, or you can read it in the playbill, so just mentally add the missing lines,� would this satisfy us???

�This idea that it�s all about the words ... �

Here we have very, very poor theology. It is about the words! Our Liturgy is a logike latreia, a �wordy service.� Christian Liturgy is precisely this: a reality (action + a material element - bread and wine or water) to which are added words to make a Christian ritual. We do not baptize babies simply by dipping them in water, but by dipping them in water and saying words: �The servant of God is baptized ... � We do not simply put bread and wine on an altar, but we say the anaphora over them! Christianity is expressed in words. This whole section seems to me to be �pseudo-mystical claptrap.�

�I have never once suggested that the priest be prohibited from praying the Anaphora aloud�

Thank you, sir.

�If it is really the will of the Holy Spirit that these prayers be prayed aloud He will make this happen in his own time�

He is, and in His own way. This is a classical case of organic development. It is connected with the move into the vernacular. It began with discussion, already in the 50's, moved to local action, than to being ratified by the bishops.

"Yes, I do mean that we should follow the 1965 Liturgicon more exactly. I know it is a difficult task. But I have seen priests who are enthusiastic about Liturgy actually lead their people from the lowest of the �Low Mass� style to a very complete Divine Liturgy (or at least one that was far more complete than the average Ruthenian parish). The key to success with any change is to generate the enthusiasm of the people, so that they say �Why can�t we have that here?�

I agree in principle. But here is my problem with your program.. You say: 1) we should return immediately to the full 1965 Liturgicon (by the way, which is NOT the full Ruthenian Recension, but enough of it for all practical purpose), and that priests with enthusiasm can do it, and the people will flock to it. Then you say 2) for any other service, we must move very slowly or we will drive people out. There is a double standard here. And whether you admit it or not, the �living memory� for other services is just as long as for the Presanctified. That there is a �living memory� of the Small Litanies because at the �Slavonic High Mass� they sang �Hospodi pomiluj, etc.... � is really, really stretching a point. The priest�s enthusiasm is very important and why can�t he have that same enthusiasm for the Presanctified, for Vespers, for Matins, for Weddings, for Baptisms that he has for the Liturgy???? Your double principle really does not make any sense to me. When you come to me and say, we�ve got to have full antiphons at the Divine Liturgy, and then say that you can�t have full antiphons at the Presanctified because that will disturb the people�s attachment to the few verses they do have, I feel like you�re just yanking my chain.

"The rubrics of the IELC Revised Liturgy have no living memory in our Church."

Except for the presbyteral prayers, the IELC does not change the order or rubrics of the Liturgy in any significant way for the people whatsoever. As you advocate for all the services outside the Divine Liturgy, the IELC will be a giant step for most parishes back to the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy. Okay, it doesn�t restore all the litanies. (For this Forum, it seems to be a common opinion that the restoration of the Ruthenian recension is linked to saying all the litanies, but this is actually not the most important issue.) However, it will be a fuller celebration of the Liturgy. Above, you do concede the right of the priest to say the presbyteral prayers aloud, but here you seem to be saying that we can�t do anything not in �living memory.� (Whose living memory, 100 year old Mrs. Shestopsalmoje, or the average middle-aged parishioner or the priest or who????) If we applied the �living memory� principle, the Liturgy would have to be in Church Slavonic, because when English was introduced, it was in no one�s �living memory.� Again, the double principle - the immediate restoration of the �full Ruthenian recension� and the gradual, very, very cautious restoration in other services.
My observation here is that this seems to be mostly about the antiphons and the small litanies between them, as well as for the Presanctified, the main issue is the antiphons and the small litanies between them, or at least, in the Levkulic version, the small litanies between the snatches of psalmody called �antiphons.�

"It�s quite true that the Levkulic Pew Book does not give the full text of the Liturgy but it was a huge restoration that was accomplished in just two years. Progress towards a much fuller Ruthenian Liturgy could easily continue in these parishes."
Exactly the goal of the IELC, but it is not the fullness that you want.

"And, yes, I neglect that the priestly rubrics that were vastly different than the official recension."

What exactly are you talking about? The rubrics of the IELC, except for the slight shortening of the incensations before the Gospel and the Great Entrance, are exactly the Byzantine tradition. Are you perhaps confused here with some of the modifications made in the 1996 Passaic edition?

"We want the litanies. All of them. I have yet to run into a layman who wants the litanies gutted from the Liturgy!"

This was the main issue when I served in Parma and we restored some of the litanies beyond the average parish practice in 1987. You must speak to very, very, very, very, very, very, very few Greek Catholics.

"The revised edition of the Presanctified is still somewhat of an abbreviation, just one abbreviated to someone else�s taste (note well the missing litanies!). The way forward was to republish the Levkulic edition with some additions, additions that would be gradually be added over the years in actual celebration. In the first new addition one would perhaps add the proper stichera for Wednesdays and Fridays (rather than the combined �weekly� ones in the existing edition), a second prokimenon and a few other improvements. Then, seven or eight years later one would print a new edition containing all of the prokimeny."

After exocriating me for for an �idiosyncratic abbreviation,� you then propose your own �idiosyncratic abbreviation!!!!� Do you really, really think that the people are so dumb or stubborn that it will take seven or eight years to add two prokeimena to the Liturgy! It is hardly the central point of the celebration. At any rate, printers will love you, they will get big jobs every seven to eight years. Likewise for the antiphons. As you said, and I agree, �This discussion is already long enough!�

"Father David might be correct in that he is a professional and that I am just a layman who knows nothing and can�t handle change."

Sorry you took offense, but you keep saying that the faithful change or adapt only with difficulty. The changes made will bring us closer to the Ruthenian fullness. Part of the problem here is that you seem to be working out of the premise that the full Ruthenian recension is being celebrated in the vast majority of the parishes and that the IELC text will abbreviate them. This is pure fantasy. And if it were true, the IELC would have never happened. It happened precisely because Archbishop Judson wanted to bring parishes closer to their Byzantine heritage.
"Father David is arguing for change in a different direction"
Again, not true. I am beginning to think that the whole problem is litanies. I want a full celebration of the traditional Liturgy (with the restoration of the presbyteral prayers, of course, which does not require a rubrical change), and I want litanies - a lot of litanies, it�s just that I don�t see it necessary to restore every last one of them. I can offer reasons: theological, liturgical structure, history, but I know my reasons will not be accepted, because it seems litanies are the �litmus test� of whether you are traditional or not.
'So far his argument for the change he has proposed does not rise above personal taste in Liturgy. He has given no substantial theological argument that changes he proposes would make us more Orthodox than change towards the fullness of the Ruthenian recension."

Nothing that I advocate is simply my own idiosyncratic personal position. I would advocate nothing that is not actually being done in many Orthodox churches, or has been espoused by or permitted by Orthodox bishops.

"Going from an old language to a new language is not the same thing as making changes to the old language."

True, the change from Slavonic to English was much more radical. However, you miss the point. The point is that the stories you tell could be used to defend Slavonic.
Look at your story about �Father Stephen.�
�I�m talking about Father Stephen, who has been a priest for over 45 years. He is a decent celebrant in the �middle Greek Catholic church style�. Father Stephen is a good man and a good pastor. He has the liturgicon memorized, but now admits he has forgotten a lot of the prayers in Slavonic because he doesn�t use much Slavonic anymore. After being a priest for 45 years he has no intention of learning all new words and rubrics, his eyes aren�t that good, and so having a lot of the prayers memorized is a big help. Maybe it�s time to retire? If he does retire can he keep using the Liturgicon he has memorized and prayed from all his priestly life? They are saying it will be forbidden.�
Let us pretend that it is 1950, here is my rewrite:
I�m talking about Father Stephen, who has been a priest for over 45 years. He is a decent celebrant in the �middle Greek Catholic church style�. Father Stephen is a good man and a good pastor. He has the liturgicon memorized, but in Slavonic. After being a priest for 45 years he would like to learn the English Liturgy, but his eyes aren�t that good, and so having a lot of the prayers memorized is a big help. Maybe it�s time to retire? If he does retire can he keep using the Liturgicon he has memorized and prayed from all his priestly life? They are saying it will be forbidden.�
This argument was actually used in the 1950's for these types of priests, and Rome even agreed that �retired� priests did not have to learn the �new� �Roman recension.�
Besides, I myself am not heartless. If a priest is going to retire soon, okay - but younger priests should be able to learn and serve a simple new translation.

"It�s not a matter of the Parma and Passaic versions being more Eastern. If that were the case I suspect that the people of my parish would flock to it. It�s long been known that the further away one gets from Pittsburgh the more Eastern one�s parish generally is (and not just because we are geographically further East than Pittsburgh is! )."

This is simply a crock and pure Passaic chauvinism, which I encounter is some Passaic priests and is pure claptrap. The whole point is that the Parma Presanctified is closer to the tradition, unless you equate tradition with the small litanies at the antiphons, and you keep on saying that the people cannot accept it, though they can accept the full Divine Liturgy.

"The real issue here is that the whole essence of the Presanctified Liturgy has changed with the removal of the litanies to break up the kathisma psalms (which give people a moment to digest them and catch a breath while praying �Lord, have mercy�); the moving of Ephrem�s prayer from it�s usual place between the �Let my prayer arise� and the Litany of Supplication to where it would be taken at the Ninth Hour (before the Presanctified) ; and the other changes. And, of course, all the textual changes. None of these changes were necessary."

There are some misconceptions here. "The whole essence????" �To catch a breath� after less than ten versicles!!!! The Ephrem Prayer�s usual place is not after �Let my prayer arise,� it is not found in the Ruthenian typical edition. Parma put it at the beginning, but perhaps that was not best, and I concede. IELC has put it after �Let my prayer rise ... � as you suggest, but it is not there in the recension, it�s only that we feel that it should be done at least once during the Presanctified. This may be a case of an error that is frequently made by some defenders of tradition, that the Levkulic texts are the Ruthenian tradition. They are not, nor are they are the norm, and he made many, many modifications and abbreviations. I myself would not advocate textual changes unless I felt they were necessary, but in regard to the Presanctified it would now be necessary to go through the texts one line at a time, and this is not the forum for that. Please keep in mind that I worked on the Parma version of the Presanctiied (provisional!), but had nothing to do with the Passaic version.

I know you will not agree with me, but my intention is the same as yours - the restoration of tradition, and I hope you will regard these remarks in that spirit, and not that I wish any personal hard feelings. It is the Great Fast.

Fr. Dave

Dear Fr. David,

Since this is a new thread, perhaps this is the place to ask two questions. I lack knowledge, and I am sincerely asking to be informed.


(1) What is the general outline of the debate about reforming the Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

I thought the debate was about adding "inclusive language," but it seems to be about much more. And, it is certainly rasing strong emotions among several people. Please forgive my ignorance, and please briefly inform me (and others like me) of the outline of this debate.


(2) In your post, you mentioned that "the changes made [in the liturgy] will bring us closer to the Ruthenian fullness." I thought the Byzantine Catholic Church was a new sui juris Church for Eastern Catholics in America. What is "Ruthenian fullness" and why does it matter in the U.S. ?

Thank you.

-- John

Dear John,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the use of the term "Byzantine Catholic Church" to denote the Ruthenian Church in America exclusively is a fairly recent innovation. Technically, all 14 Catholic Churches that follow the Byzantine Rite could be called Byzantine Catholic Churches. I believe that Fr. David's reference to a return of the "Ruthenian fullness" denotes a return to the genuine liturgical and spiritual practices that are unique to the Rusyn Catholic Church, of which the "Byzantine Catholic Church in America" is a descendant.

God bless,

Chris

The present name is not sufficiently identifying. While a "new" Liturgy is in the makes, perhaps a new name should be also.

Father, bless!

There are parishes which are attached to celebrating more litanies than what apparently will be allowed. Will those parishes have, at least, the option of continuing to do so?

I agree.

Good heavens � this is certainly a challenge, what with the sheer volume of the discussion. However, fools and autodidacts sometimes rush in where angels fear to tread, so here goes.

The suggestion that the service of the deacon and the service of the presbyter are somehow or other identical is clearly absurd (although I am aware of at least one vernacular edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which appears to prescribe that the deacon should offer the Institution Narrative over the bread!). It is not at all difficult to differentiate the one from the other; in fact it is so easy that I shall not take the trouble to do so here. The only �confusion� I know of arises from the still-widespread abuse of presbyters pretending to be deacons (until the Anaphora, when one can notice such �priest-deacons� whispering the Institution Narrative along with the main celebrant! I suppose the peculiar institution of Cardinal-deacons and Archdeacons in the Western Churches are also instances of confusion, but we have no need to concern ourselves with that and I trust we are all agreed that presbyters playing deacon is an abuse that has no conceivable justification, any more than a deacon playing presbyter could be justified.

It is, alas, true that one can easily find presbyters who resent deacons because the deacon has a more conspicuous role in the Divine Liturgy. Perhaps such presbyters have Matthew 6:5 as their collective motto �the hypocrites . . . love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.�

That having been said, if anyone really can�t tell the difference between a priest and a deacon at our Divine Liturgy, please tell me and I shall sigh, and write an explanation.


Confusion really arises, however, from the outrageous absence of deacons. I�ve been faced with people who have some pretensions to a theological education who do not hesitate to affirm belligerently that deacons are an unnecessary ornament unless they do something useful, such as teaching catechism! This could only have happened in a situation where people could and did grow up with no deacons in sight. Unless we seriously believe that we know better than the Holy Apostles, it would behoove us to embark upon a crash program of instructing both the clergy and the faithful in the importance of the diaconate, beginning with the Liturgy (and beginning that by an absolute moratorium on publishing prayer-books which presume that there is no deacon).

Confusion also arises as a result of the attempts to impose involuntary celibacy on those who aspire to the presbyterate. Married candidates are side-tracked into the �permanent� diaconate, with destructive effects on the diaconate, the presbyterate and the pastoral ministry. A deacon is not a crippled priest, or a man with one hand tied behind his back, or a cripple, or an unordained person. Still less is the diaconate some sort of broken conveyor belt to move deacons along on the road to the presbyterate. Sometimes this reaches unbelievable lengths of absurdity. It�s offensive enough to find that some of our jurisdictions refuse to use the traditional form of address for a deacon (Father Deacon) and require the deacon to wear a necktie instead of a �clergy collar� (the clergy collar is a Protestant invention which has nothing to do with us � I would advise self-respecting bishops, priests and deacons to throw the clergy collars in the garbage where they belong and resume the anterion and rason immediately). Even worse � and this is hard to believe, but it�s true � in some Latin dioceses in the USA the deacon is required to wear an alb (during the Mass, of course) with the collar of the alb cut in such a way as to reveal that the deacon is wearing a necktie under the alb! (I would advise deacons trapped in such places to grow full beards as soon as possible and take to wearing plain black shirts if they are not allowed to wear the cassock � but then I have a nasty sense of humor).
Best of all � or worst of all � is one that doesn�t actually cause confusion between the presbyter and the deacon, but which comes close and is too hilarious to keep to myself. The supply houses offering Latin vestments have two different styles of deacon�s stoles � one for the permanent deacon and one for the �transitional� deacon. Any guesses as to what the difference is? !

But enough idiocy for the next minute or two.

The real issue here is perhaps the question of whether (specifically to do with the Anaphora) the words or the action should be considered more important. Both Catholics and Orthodox would normally answer with unanimity that the action is by far the more important. Protestantism introduced the other opinion � the words are important and the action is merely symbolic (in a vulgar sense) or a mere memorial. Hence the Protestants either reduced the Anaphora to the Institution Narrative, or abbreviated it drastically, and required that it should be pronounced clearly and audibly for all to hear in the relevant vernacular language.

From the Catholic (and Orthodox) position we may note that the older title of the Roman �Canon� is the Actio Missae, (this remains in use with reference to the few small changes which occur in the Roman Canon on great feasts; these changes are described as being �infra Actionem�.

Whole books and innumerable studies have been written on this point (which has obvious consequences for the discussion on whether, and how often, and in what fashion the Anaphora should be offered audibly); I shall not attempt to summarize the argument here. Suffice it for the moment to say that in the early Church no such discussion could possibly have arisen, even though the Anaphora was very often chanted, at least recto tono. After all, the Lord has instructed us to DO this, not to SAY this!

The illustration Father David offers about a Shakespearean play is actually relevant in several ways. Here it really is the words that count, although the scenery and the stage accessories help. The very idea that instead of an understudy a missing actor or actress could be replaced by keeping silence during certain portions is ridiculous. However, quite frequently one finds attempts to re-write Shakespeare in so-called modern language. Such attempts come and go, and meanwhile the original plays, in Elizabethan-Jacobean English, remain as popular as ever (as anyone who has ever tried to get tickets for Stratford can attest!). The �liturgy of the latest fad� is a silly idea.

The λογική λατρεία does not denote a �wordy service�. Saint Paul urges us παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν Θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν [Romans 12:1] Thayer defines λογικός as �rational�, and then defines λατρεία λογική as �the worship which is rendered by the reason or soul [�spiritual�]� and says that the Vulgate translates it as rationabilis. [Thayer�s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 379.] Pope Benedict XVI has written that the Liturgy �is meant to be indeed a λογική λατρεία, the �logicizing� of my existence, my interior contemporaneity with the self-giving of Christ.� That definition has nothing to do with wordiness (or verbosity). Pace Father David, the phrase λογική λατρεία gives no support to a demand for an absolute requirement for the entire Anaphora to be offered audibly.

�Christianity is expressed in words� � yes. But even the Protestants use the expression �Word and Sacrament�, which clearly implies that the two are not identical. Shall we, for example, cease to celebrate the Anointing with Oil because sometimes the sick person cannot hear us? Or shall we insist that the Sacrament may only be given by seven priests who all speak the same language as the sick person? Is the Baptism of infants invalid because the neophyte cannot be presumed to understand the words �The Servant of God is baptized . . . � while we are immersing him? Is the Chrismation of infants invalid because the infant cannot understand the words? Must we stop singing �Axios� because the Greek word may not be familiar to some ordinands? Are weddings in Greece invalid because young people no longer understand κοινη? And so forth. I hasten to add that none of these linguistic requirements would hold even a drop of theological Holy Water! I firmly believe in the need for vernacular translations and celebrations; I formed that belief in high school and have never seen any reason to change my opinion � but I do not believe, and have never believed, that hieratic languages have no place in worship.

Father David laments that the Administrator is applying a double standard, by advocating the repristination of the Liturgy with all speed by restoring the use of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgicon (in whatever the relevant language may be � in the USA that normally means English or Spanish) while simultaneously insisting that introducing more innovations must be done cautiously and slowly. Well, no one can dispute that the Administrator is applying two different standards; the question before us is whether the Adminstrator is justified in so doing. The justification can be stated simply: the official Ruthenian Recension is the lawful form of celebration of the Divine Liturgy, mandated by the Holy See at the request of the bishops who use the liturgical tradition (and who had previously used the 1905 Liturgicon or Missal, either in Slavonic or in translation). It is shameful that the Divine Liturgy in that edition was promulgated before many of us on this forum were born, and that so few of us who attend Ruthenian parishes of the Pittsburgh Metropolia have ever had any opportunity to become familiar with it. Nevertheless, that is the form of Liturgy that carries the full authority of the Holy See, to which the Ruthenian hierarchs, clergy and faithful are presumed to be allegiant. This form of Liturgy therefore enjoys pride of place. Even though introducing it into practical use in most parishes would change the style of service, it would by definition involve no innovations at all for the vast majority of the clergy and the faithful, whose memories do not reach back beyond 1940.
The proposed innovations, on the other hand, are not the official Liturgy, but rather a cut-and-paste job, resulting directly from the failure of Archbishop Nicholas Elko to accept the clear instructions of the Holy See. The very fact that so few clergy and faithful have had a serious opportunity to become familiar with the official Liturgy necessitates the implementation of the official Liturgy before even beginning a serious discussion of reforms and changes � as the liturgical movement knew a century ago, one cannot successfully reform what one does not know.

So the double standard has a solid basis.

I will agree with Father David that chanting the responses to the Small Litanies without the Litanies themselves probably didn�t really keep the memory of those Litanies alive. On the other hand, those Small Litanies usually serve a legitimate liturgical purpose, and those who do not know that the Small Litanies exist may be presumed not to know what that legitimate liturgical purpose is, and therefore have no business trying to rip up the Small Litanies and consign them to the incinerator.

Since I am thoroughly unfamiliar with how Presanctified is done in US Ruthenian parishes, I shall abstain from that portion of the discussion.

On the other hand, if at the age of one hundred Mrs Anybody is still able to read the Six Psalms, she should be encouraged and treasured!


Father David chides the Administrator that �You must speak to very, very, very, very, very, very, very few Greek Catholics.� Here Father David sees fit to use the word �very� seven times in unbroken succession, in one prepositional phrase. Is the significance of this available only to the illuminati, or may a mere ordinary mortal ask what it might mean? How does the seven-fold Very differ from the five-fold Very? Or the three-fold Very? Or the Very pistol?

Meanwhile, though, since the Administrator has been distributing a highly successful Sunday liturgical sheet for use in the actual Divine Liturgy in some two hundred parishes, it seems safe to say that he is in touch with a reasonable number of Greek-Catholics.

Father David writes that he � would advocate nothing that is not actually being done in many Orthodox churches�. Well, that depends on one�s definition of �many�. I could find a great many Orthodox churches, and not a few Greek-Catholic churches, where a priest who would serve according to what seems to be Father David�s preferred form would be seeking other employment quite soon.

Both the Administrator and Father David should keep in mind that with modern methods of printing and photocopying, it is possible to provide a priest (or deacon, or chanter, or parishioner) whose eyes are not at their best with the text of the Divine Liturgy (or anything else) in a suitable size of print. For the deacon, it can even be done in huge print while keeping the actual book pocket-size. Inevitably that will make the book thicker, but life is full of such compromises.

As with the Presanctified, so with the hint of Passaic chauvinism, or Parma chauvinism, or Pittsburgh chauvinism, I shall abstain from comment! I did once meet a priest from the Parma eparchy who was quite upset because in Passaic the priests were accustomed to use a particular Ecphonesis which was not at the time customarily used in Parma. Ho-hum.

However, I might offer a suggestion. Some years ago a Father Hazuda (I think) from South America did a useful survey on actual liturgical and other practices in Ukrainian Greek-Catholic parishes in the diaspora. His findings have been published, although since I don�t speak the language in question I�ve not been able to use them as much as I would like to. It would be a valuable contribution for someone � preferably someone with a semblance of official standing � would take a similar survey of the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The data would probably prove eye-opening.


Both the Administrator and Father David should know that the use of the Prayer of Saint Ephrem at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is a relatively recent innovation � it is done by custom in many of the Slav Churches and occasionally among the Greeks, but is often absent from the liturgical books. However, this is a highly desirable innovation, because so few of the faithful attend (or have the opportunity to attend) much of the rest of the Lenten cycle of worship and this short prayer is crucial to our understanding of Great Lent. Since this is something of an innovation for everyone, in the best interests of not departing from the corresponding Orthodox usage, it is sensible to use the Prayer, if one is going to use it at all, in the same place(s) as the Orthodox use it.

Good Lent!

Incognitus

Fr. David:

Here�s a response. Cathy asked in an earlier post, �what can we do about this?� Well, I�ve seriously considered what has transpired over the last week or so, and weighed both sides. The �new translation� didn�t really have much support, except for you Fr. David. You're too close to the subject to be unbiased. Others have tried to tow the party line, some half-heartedly, but there isn't any conviction there. Those against have many good and valid arguments.

The secrecy among our bishops and clergy in regard to this �new translation� bothers me a great deal. Do they hold the laity in such contempt that they are unwilling to discuss their motivation, or, God forbid, ask for our input?

I think Robert Heinlein expressed it best, �Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny�.
What can we expect next, membership in the WCC?

Is it just my perception, or have some of the more vocal critics of the �new translation�, those in orders to be precise, been silenced? That would be a sham, shame, no I had it right the first time, sham.

Well, I for one contacted my parish priest, who hasn't said a word on the subject publicly. He's not happy about the changes, especially when no one was really consulted as to why we need another translation. Next stop, the bishop. What happens if I get the brush off, well I've thought about that too.

Write your bishop, and express your concern in no uncertain terms. Let him know that the liturgy matters, and other than corrections, there is not a reason to change it

Write the Apostolic Nuncio. Express your concerns to him regarding the �new translation�. Also express your concern that your bishop is out of touch with his flock and needs to address real problems.

What do I hope to accomplish? Well, maybe the bishops will take notice that the laity aren't very happy with their poor decisions. As others have pointed out all to well in discussions over the last week, there are more important issues that need to be addressed than our liturgy at the present time. I don't think anyone would disagree that the errors in the liturgy need to be corrected, but the rest is nonsense.

Dear bishops, I urge you to perform you jobs with zeal; address the many problems OUR church is facing. Our liturgy isn't one of them. Too many of you, past and present, are keeping your thrones warm. Christ will judge your stewardship one day;

Sine Nomine

To Harmon3110

There are probably many subjective reasons why many are opposed to the new translation. I think I've tried to respond to some of them. I also think "Ruthenian fullness" here means a complete translation of the Oriental Congregation's Liturgicon meant for the Ruthenians, as exemplified by the 1965 Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission translation, which is not 100 %, but very close, to this model edition.

Nec aliter's question is in regard to the conditions under which the Council of Hierarchs will promulgate the Liturgy, so I don't know.

To Incognitus:
I know you are capable of subtle argumentation. Obviously there are many ways to tell a priest from a deacon. What I meant is that a deacon's role may be summed up as incense and litanies, a presbyters role as prayers. Since the prayers are silent, and since many parishes did not nor still do not have deacons, the people would perceive the priests role as more litanies and incensations than prayers.

Your comments on words do not invalidate my argument. The Christian texts must be rational and logical, which indicates the use of words. Words are important, we do not use "mumbo-jumbo" even if the person hearing does not understand the words. This clarity is a hallmark of Christian faith. The reference to the Protestants favoring words may be intended to color my remarks as favoring Protestantism, which is a great fear to many of the traditional Catholics, but it does not negate my theological approach. However important actions are, in Christian Liturgy they are joined to words.

The sentence, "The proposed innovations ... clear instructions of the Holy See," seem to me to be an attempt to paint the current work of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission with the brush of Archbishop Elko's liturgical proclivities. This ignores the reality that Elko would have been appalled at the "Orthodoxy" of the present IELC, its work is clearly much closer to the authentic Byzantine tradition than Elko's attempt at an "American Liturgy," nor would he have tolereated the reintroduction of the Third Antiphon, audible presbyteral prayers, numerous litany petitions, the removal of the Filioque, the reintroduction of the zeon, et cet., all done with the consent of the Holy See. Your statement is completely misleading.

Your arguments about the "double standard" do explain your views on why we should follow the 1965 liturgicon, but they do not, in any way that I can discern, explain why we should not follow what the Oriental Congregation has promulgated for the Presanctified or for the Trebnik.

My argument that the Administrator must know very few Greek Catholics, which was an observation on statistical probability was turned into a linguistic argument. The point I made is clear, there are a lot of people who do not want longer liturgies, and I've heard them and see pastors who are worried about them. But the Administrator tried to imply that there are none because he has never met one. When he sends out his liturgical sheet to 200 parishes, does he poll them about litanies? I really like the Administrator as a person and support his work for our church, but I cannot accept exclusive statements like "there's no one ... " and I think that should be corrected. I apologize if my remarks are misinterpreted.

My statement that I would not advocate anything that is not actually being done in many Orthodox Churches," was also stood on its head, to say that whatever I advocate is probably censured in some Orthodox Churches. This only shows that there is not unanimity in actual Orthodox practice at present. I would also not advocate practices that are clearly contrary to sound liturgical practice even if approved, nor would I advocate a practice that was done by a priest and not at least tolerated by his hierarch.

"Sine nomine"'s post was the saddest of all for me -
no priest has been "silenced"
he then wants to silence me because I have feelings about the liturgy and am therefore biased. I thought the whole point of this thread was that we do feel strongly about the Liturgy one way or another. Do I lose my voice because I strongly favor it????? Or do I lose my voice because I helped formulate it????? Speaking of "silencing" someone!
This forum is not the whole Byzantine Catholic Church. There are many people who support me, though few may post on the forum.

What do you mean by "other than corrections"??? There are many liturgical problems that need to be "corrected," hopefully in a charitable and enlightened way. Don't bind our Church from being able to act for the pastoral good and needs of our people. I never disregard the "vox populi" but sometimes people speak without knowing all the dimensions of the issue. Your comments on secrecy can be a two-edged sword.

Fr. David

Father, bless!

Thanks for replying to my question. I have another question about restoring prosphora traditons. Is there any consideration being given to restoring traditional prosphora traditions (loaves being cut up at the proskomedia and antidoron) for the Ruthenian Church instead of using pre-cut pieces?

Father, Bless

Since you said:

Would it be wrong or against the new translation of the liturgy to have the Preistly prayers done silently if there is a Deacon present at the liturgy since the Priest and the Deacon would be preforming thier proper roles in front of the people?

Jesse Venner

Father David pointed out:

This forum is not the whole Byzantine Catholic Church. There are many people who support me, though few may post on the forum.

I agree with this observation wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd venture to sat that the majority of Byzantine Catholics probably have never even seen this Forum. Of course, there's no way to prove that, is there? Still, it sort of puts a lot of the venting, etc. in perspective, IMHO.

Agreed, Jim. However, I don't think the Forum can be discounted entirely. If a significant percentage of people here are concerned on an issue then I think it should be considered seriously.

Thank you for all who responded to my post, esepcially you, Fr. David. You have all given me much to think about. Be well.

-- John

I thank Father David for his post. I know he is a busy man, so I am very appreciative of his taking the time for this discussion.

I hope that we are in agreement in the general; that we both want a true renewal and restoration of our Eastern heritage. At times Father David�s argument for revision seems to come across as a desire to distinguish us as a �Third Way�, one that is distinct from the Orthodox. But I take him at his word that he is interested in a true renewal. We do, however, certainly disagree in the particular. What Father David advocates as Eastern (excising litanies and mandating presbyteral prayers out loud) I see as very Western, as if he is simply applying the 1970s liberal Latin approach to the revision of their Mass to the Byzantine Liturgy.

Father David asked:
What do you mean by the �traditional liturgy?� Common practice or the book? If the Liturgy is celebrated with a deacon, the public role of the priest is to say doxologies and to give blessings. Some of our older and older-minded priests complain about having deacons - precisely because it robs them of their parts.! With no deacon, the priest takes over litanies and incensations, which then become the bulk of his role. The presbyteral role, however, is properly to say the prayers in the name of the community.

The traditional liturgy is the official texts and rubrics of the Ruthenian recension as promulgated by Rome. These books are the ones that unite us with all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension and provide the standard for our Church.

I agree with Father David that there are some priests who dislike deacons. But that is not what I am talking about. I also agree that the priest prays his prayers in the name of the community. But it is not necessary for the priest to pray his prayers aloud in order for the prayers to be valid or for the people to assent to these prayers with their �Amen!� The Church has a custom of about 1,500 years of the priest praying these prayers in low voice. I do not believe this to be merely a mistake, an accident of history.

I wrote:
�The faithful have the same access to the core reason for the Liturgy whether the presbyteral prayers are prayed aloud for their hearing or quietly.�

To which Father David replied:
This is simply nonsense. The people�s role is hymn of glorification. The deacon�s role is petitions of intercession. The presbyteral prayers are the heart of the Liturgy. A congregation singing hymns cannot have a liturgy.

There is no nonsense here. The people�s role is indeed a hymn of glorification. The deacon�s role is in praying the petitions of intercession. The presbyteral prayers are indeed the heart of the liturgy. The congregation singing hymns without a priest cannot have a liturgy. Father David may note that I have never once suggested that we become priestless Church! So I�m not sure what he is suggesting here. The priest�s prayers are active whether he prayers them quietly or aloud. The people have the same access to the action of the priest whether they hear him or not.

Father David wrote that �This idea that it�s all about the words ... is very poor theology.� I agree with this statement. From where I stand it seems that he is the one who is overly concerned about the words, to make sure people hear them because the Liturgy is somehow lacking when they are not prayed aloud.

I wrote:
�I have never once suggested that the priest be prohibited from praying the Anaphora aloud�

To which Father David replied:
Thank you, sir.

I�m not sure what Father David is thanking me for. My position here has been very consistent � I have spoken only against mandates to pray the presbyteral prayers aloud. In the official Ruthenian Liturgicon a priest is already free to pray his prayers quietly or aloud. If it is the will of the Holy Spirit that these prayers be prayed aloud this will occur over time and no mandates will be necessary. The Revised Liturgy does not merely document a custom that has a long history in our parishes. It is the mandating of a new custom that could only be considered experimental, one that is certainly not the norm across Byzantium. Father David seems to lament that I (and others) advocate following a factious worldwide Orthodoxy. Then he suggests that everything he advocates is already found there and this justifies his revision of the Liturgy. I don�t think he can have it both ways.

Father David wrote:
You say: 1) we should return immediately to the full 1965 Liturgicon (by the way, which is NOT the full Ruthenian Recension, but enough of it for all practical purpose), and that priests with enthusiasm can do it, and the people will flock to it. Then you say 2) for any other service, we must move very slowly or we will drive people out.

I have never used the term �immediately� to describe the procedure to bring parishes into conformity with the 1965 Liturgicon. In fact, I have written at reasonably great length to describe a multi-year plan. But there is no double standard here. Having the 1965 Liturgicon (which is based upon the official Ruthenian books) as the standard and offering a pastoral method of bringing parishes into conformity with it are two different topics. I�ve seen a parish go from the lowest of �Low Masses� to a very full 1965 Liturgicon in about two years, so I know it is possible. But I also know that such a thing cannot be done without the enthusiasm of the clergy, so I offer a multi-year period that can be used to build this enthusiasm and in which the local bishop can celebrate the full Liturgy wherever he goes so that the people will become accustom to it.

Father David wrote:
There is a double standard here. And whether you admit it or not, the �living memory� for other services is just as long as for the Presanctified. That there is a �living memory� of the Small Litanies because at the �Slavonic High Mass� they sang �Hospodi pomiluj, etc.... � is really, really stretching a point.

I disagree. A good number of people have made use of the various prayer books to follow the Liturgy, from the 1944 prayer book blessed by Bishop Takach to the 1966 Divine Liturgy Book (the little green one) to the 1976 Byzantine Book of Prayer. All of these contained the complete text of the Divine Liturgy. People saw that these litanies were part of the Liturgy even if they were omitted. It is not stretch at all for them to match up the singing of the responses of these litanies with the litanies in the book they have in their hands.

Father David wrote:
When you come to me and say, we�ve got to have full antiphons at the Divine Liturgy, and then say that you can�t have full antiphons at the Presanctified because that will disturb the people�s attachment to the few verses they do have, I feel like you�re just yanking my chain.

I must have made my point clumsily. The problem with the first part of the Revised Presanctified is that not that there are more psalm texts available. The problem is that the little litanies are excised from the book and the psalm texts are now changeable to the day. The little litanies tie everything together and give the people a breather between psalms. The variable psalms create liturgical instability, making the texts much more difficult to memorize and become intimate with. A better comparison to the three antiphons of the Divine Liturgy might be if one were to mandate taking the first three verses each of psalm (65, 66 and 94) on the first Sunday, then the next three verses of each psalm on the following Sunday, and so forth. The desire for more scripture in the liturgy is an admirable one. But the fact that the people had the Levkulic texts memorized and sung them with full heart cannot be dismissed so casually. Stability in liturgy is vital.

Father David wrote:
Except for the presbyteral prayers, the IELC does not change the order or rubrics of the Liturgy in any significant way for the people whatsoever. As you advocate for all the services outside the Divine Liturgy, the IELC will be a giant step for most parishes back to the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy.

Father David seriously underestimates the change in the balance and flow of the Divine Liturgy that occurs when the presbyteral prayers are taken out loud. He has taken prayers away from the deacon and people in order to move the focus of attention to the person of the priest. Looking even at just the example of the anaphora, the mandated praying of it aloud seems to be a direct imitation of the current Roman Catholic custom. All one needs to do to make the imitation of the Latins complete is to remove the icon screen and have the priest face the people.

I submit for consideration that the Revised Liturgy is no way necessary in order to take a giant step towards the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy. We have seen the �as celebrated� Liturgy in several parishes move from very abbreviated to very full (with a corresponding increase in enthusiasm of priest and people for the Ruthenian liturgical tradition). It was not necessary to revise the Liturgy to accomplish this.

The problem is not with the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy. The problem is that the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy has never really been tried as the norm in our Church. In the 1940s Rome published an official Ruthenian Liturgicon. The bishops told the priests not to follow it but to instead to celebrate the Liturgy as the bishops directed. In the 1960s the English Liturgicon was published and the bishops told the priests not to follow it but instead to celebrate the Liturgy as the bishops directed. And now we have an instruction from Rome telling us to celebrate the fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy and once again we have bishops telling us not to, to celebrate a revision instead. With our history of bishops mandating against the Ruthenian liturgical tradition we can hardly expect priestly enthusiasm for a fuller version of our tradition.

Now there is the separate issue of getting the priests to celebrate a fuller Liturgy. This is a difficult task, given our history of them being directed away from the fullness of the Ruthenian liturgical tradition. The way forward here is for the bishops to be enthusiastic about the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy, to celebrate it everywhere and to encourage the clergy to celebrate it. In Passaic Bishop Michael raised the standard quite a bit by his example (something that did not happen in Pittsburgh until Metropolitan Judson began celebrating a fuller Divine Liturgy).

Yes, there will be those older priests who may simply refuse to restore anything. Unless enthusiasm for restoration can be generated in this group the only solution here is to leave them alone until they retire or to retire them early and replace them with priests who will celebrate a fuller liturgy. Changing the Liturgy is only going to cause them to say �If Father Petras can change the Liturgy to his personal taste, then so can I.�

Father David wrote:
The changes made will bring us closer to the Ruthenian fullness. Part of the problem here is that you seem to be working out of the premise that the full Ruthenian recension is being celebrated in the vast majority of the parishes and that the IELC text will abbreviate them. This is pure fantasy. And if it were true, the IELC would have never happened. It happened precisely because Archbishop Judson wanted to bring parishes closer to their Byzantine heritage.

Again, it is not necessary to change the standard in order to move our Church closer to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension. I am not sure where Father David gets the idea that the traditional Liturgy can never work in our Church. It seems to me that, at best, the Revised Liturgy would be more difficult to implement than the Ruthenian Liturgy. The task is difficult, I know. But it would be far easier to get a priest to take what is already ours (in our books even if not celebrated) than it is to introduce a new, changed standard.

Regarding his other comments on the Presanctified, I can only refer him back to what I wrote previously. He has changed the standard. People knew and became comfortable with certain texts and rubrics in the Levkulic Presanctified. Instead of building upon this (adding the other missing elements of the Presanctified) he changed what the people knew and were comfortable with (texts and rubrics). On the Ephrem Prayer, I am aware that it is not in the typical Ruthenian edition. But since it was already there, accepted in that location, and is the norm in that position for other Orthodox Churches, and was desired to be kept, it made no sense whatsoever to move it to the beginning of the Presanctified. It also made no sense to change a known text with another text (which only adds to the confusion).

It is not necessary to change the official Ruthenian tradition in order to restore it.

I will again state that while I strongly disagree with Father David�s revisions to the Divine Liturgy I highly respect him as an individual. That I consider him to be wrong in his opinions on Liturgy does not mean that I do not value him and his work. The IELC has done a tremendous effort. Had the �style sheet� been one of restoring instead of revising, fixing only actual mistakes and the avoidance of offensive inclusive language I would probably be a supporter of the result.

Admin