www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Liturgical Instruction and the Proposed Revision of the Divine Liturgy

"We are not called to lead the reform of the Byzantine liturgy. We are called to restore our patrimony, however."

Are we to assume that the Orthodox will take a lead in the reform of the Byzantine Liturgy? How will that happen? When will that happen? We get Orthodox Christians at our parish and they cannot help but realize how very Orthodox we are. Maybe why a number of Orthodox families have become parishioners? Some have suggested how their own pastors should take a few lessons from us. We even do some liturgical services that they don't even do anymore. Sometimes one cannot wait until we get our marching orders - either from Rome or Orthodoxy to be who we are supposed to be.

I feel that the Byzantine Catholic Churches CAN lead in addition to being able to reform itself. Must we always be in a Mommy-may-I mode? Must we always operate in a straight-jacket? Are we too accustomed to have Rome make all the important decisions for us that we just got lazy and forgot how to lead? Can we even begin to speak of leadership if we don't know what it is or have not recognized it in years? It takes courage to be ourselves and a lot of ... guts.

I cannot help but notice how many of our clergy over the years reformed the liturgy on their own initiative. How many liturgical texts made our services much more available due to the many "private" publications of vespers texts, hymn books, liturgy books, and the like. We fail to see how the spirit of reform is not always something initiated from on high but that starts at the grass-roots level. As as cantor, I cannot help notice also the many self-written musical sheets for singing our liturgies. How many cheat-sheets developed outside official publishing organs? We should thank those many clergy, cantors, and monastics who provided the utensils of spiritual nutrition when our bishops did not. Would we even have a Festal Menaion or a Pentecostarion without private publishing houses? Let's face it - the care over the years has been lacking. But like in all things church-related, what was once contraband practice is now typical. Would we even have gotten this far if we waited for someone to make an official decision? Grass-roots reform is fine and dandy and has done the trick. But much of that reform came without direction from above. How many of our priests in this country admit that they use Orthodox liturgical texts because its available and is user-friendly. The reform of our liturgy is finally getting a stamp of approval from above. Several have asked for a longer time to study and discern any changes, but fail to acknowledge the many practical studies done already in our many parishes that have already initiated the reforms. Before the Instructions were many dabblings in reform already.

The progress of reform is not evenly spread. I only have to go out of state to attend one of our liturgies to worship within the context of I recognize from twenty years ago! Much is done with a sense of drabness. Cantors recite the troparion and kontakion in lightening speed as if they were talking to themselves and had somewhere to go in a hurry. The anaphora is said silently and the responses give me the feeling of watching someone in a play talk on a phone whereby I cannot hear the entire dialog. Participation is lacking and hardly anyone sings. Some take up praying the rosary to have something to do while the priest does his thing. The kneeling and the overemphasis on the words of Institution, which is said aloud. The feeling of attending a Latin High Mass.

[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

This is the epitome of a Western perspective towards the Byzantine liturgy. True liturgical development is something done over multiple generations and centuries. Someone who is Eastern in thought would never actively seek to reform the liturgy.

Joe,

Certainly reform is needed. What you cited were the type of reform that is needed...returning to our roots and removing latinizations and abbreviations. But, we still have a long way to go on many points.

Your parish may be an exception. I know from my experience of talking to Orthodox about how we Ruthenians often celebrate the Liturgy I often end up apologetic. "Oh, well, we don't do that." "Some of our parishes have restored xxxx." Etc., etc.

Reform by restoring authentic tradition? An emphatic yes!

Reform by adopting newer practices which are finding acceptance in other Byzantine jurisdictions (Orthodox and Catholic)? These should be reviewed and might be acceptable or even be considered evidence of the development of living tradition.

Reform by innovation apart from the rest of the Byzantine tradition? Especially when we have not restored many authentic traditions (and seem to be reluctant to do so)? I say no.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Professor,

Thank you for your post, and for your questions for clarification.

At the outset, I want to beg you to understand that because I disagree with an academic position, or a philosophy of translation, does not mean that I imply any personal criticism. In my conscience, it is no personal slander, to say that I disagree with the published work of a colleague or academic. I would never question any member of the IELC's qualifications or scholarly reputation. On the contrary, as I have said before, and happily repeat, I have nothing but respect and esteem for their priesthood, and for them as persons. They are scholarly, and learned, and well qualified. Yet I profoundly disagree with them on the point of the readiness of this proposed translation for use.

You ask for a clarification: "I want to understand this completely, Father. Are you saying, categorically, that the translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which was produced by the IELC and approved by the Sacred Oriental Congregation in Rome was NOT done in a "rigorously scholarly, accurate, and faithful translation?""

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying, in every way and in every respect that the proposed translated English text does not faithfully convey the exact meaning of the original normative Slavonic edition. In every respect where something is left out, or something added that was not there formerly, these are revisions, and omissions or interpolations. In every translation that is inconsistent, or an interpretation not warranted by a rigorous understanding of the original, then it is not a faithful or accurate translation. That is precisely what I am saying.

The principles of translation have been clearly set out again by Rome, and I think in every respect that the proposed translation and revision does not follow, word for word, concept by concept, the original text of the slavonic Liturgy, it is neither exactly faithful nor always accurate.

I am so delighted that the text and music has been circulated for comment, to my mind this has been a very helpful process and discussion has further clarified my views, and made me willing to be even stronger in my assertions.

I have nothing but respect of course, for my friends and colleagues and brothers Fathers David and Jack, and the other members of the commission. Of course, no one can suggest that Father Archimandrite Taft is not a scholar, for it would be hard to find a more learned liturgist anywhere.

In fact, I suspect that it was most likely his desk that the proposed translation landed on in Rome. It was probably his recommendation which returned the translation with suggestions for ammendment etc., but I am not privy to this correspondence.

However in the question of translation method, a survey of journals such as "Worship" where Father Archimandrite is often published, will suggest to us that Father Taft is a supporter of the ICEL "method and style" of translation of texts. As a scholar yourself, you will be aware of the importance of this accademic discussion within the Roman Catholic Church. Journals are 'alight' with defenders of ICEL, and those who are delighted to see its demise, with the publication of the new directives from Rome.

It is into this debate we now wade. And the shock and alarm sounded here, is also rehearsed in these journals, both by those who defend ICEL principles, and those who welcome the new directives. You are well aware, I'm sure, of the heat generated by these articles in the liturgical journals. In this context, our discussion can seem temperate?

Our discussion of the Liturgical translation falls clearly within this greater context. It is about the principles of translation. And, in my mind, I believe that the instruction from Rome settles the matter. Supporters of ICEL style and method will disagree and see red! I accept your criticsm of my position, but I do not take it personally, I merely see it as a difference in position, and I am not hurt that you or others in our Church or outside it do not agree with me.

You correct me when you assert that: "to have said that the IELC has "overstepped its remit" is slanderous unless you have the original documentation from the Council of Hierarchs which set up this commission's work in the first place."

You are right I have not seen this documentation, and I sincerely apologize for this assertion. It does however raise the obvious question; Are you suggesting that the Council of Hierarchs authorized the IELC to revise the Liturgy in this way? If they did that before Rome issued its instruction on translation of Liturgical texts, then this is disappointing, and perhaps they will think again. In that case, of course, the Commission is without responsibility, and were following a remit to revise the Liturgy and employ a liberal and free style in some of their renderings. If this is the case, then the fact that Rome has issued new instructions may be an issue for the Council of Hierarchs to address, and they might wish to revise their instructions to the IELC. If they do not, however, then the IELC is blameless in the matter.

You say that "It was the decision of the Council of Hierarchs that the abbreviation be followed---and Rome did not disagree. I am sorry that Rome didn't, but they didn't."

I am disappointed too, usually Rome has been more insistent that the authorized books be followed exactly. I am at a loss to explain their failure to do so in this case.

You are also disappointed that our Administrator (and also I) suggest that the IELC are not fully aware of this documentation from Rome. I do not believe I said that, exactly. I did say that it seems to me, that it is reasonable to use these principles to judge the translation.

I will say, that at the time much of this work was done, the new principles (set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam) for translations were not yet issued by Rome. However, do you affirm that the translation follows the principles of translation set forth in them?

You of course may rightly question my qualifications for making the statements I have. I will join you in this, for I know my qualifications and lack of them. However, I certainly do not question the credentials, "scholarship and the churchmanship of the members of the IELC". I repeat, that I have nothing but respect for them. However, even an uneducated monk is entitled to a view and an opinion.

I feel that my questions are fair. One does not need to be a scientist either, to see that the Slavonic typical edition and the proposed translation do not match up. Even a simple monk will see that there seem to be differences between the slavonic and english texts. And even though I am not an 'expert', I will continue to argue that some of the translations are also inaccurate and inconsistent.

Again, you are correct to suggest that the discussion initiated by the circulation of the texts and music will be considered at forthcoming meetings of the IELC. I hope that these questions will be discussed by those who will have the ultimate responsibility for making these decisions. Once a decision is made by them, of course, the matter will be altogether different, and my opinions will be a different matter. But for now, there is widespread discussion of these questions.

This forum is hosting such a discussion. I do not think it is inappropriate.

We can do so charitably, and without impugning anything to the character or churchmanship of anyone. I am very sorry that you feel this is a personal attack by me on anyone. Nothing could be farther from my desire or intention.

I do however have serious reservations about the proposed translation and revision. My opinions are not news to any member of the commission who has ever met me. From the moment I first witnessed some aspects of the changes and revision, I have been puzzled, dismayed and disappointed.

My points are simple and clear.

1. The proposed translation violates the spirit of the directives on accurate, complete translation of normative texts, set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam. It clearly orders translations to be prepared which follow the original text "integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses."

2. The revision of the Liturgicon will further differentiate us from others with whom we share this Liturgical patrimony, the Ruthenian Recension. I feel that is not the way forward for our Church, and it is disappointing that this proposed Liturgicon and revised rubrics will cause a deeper rift between ourselves and other Byzantine Catholic Churches. Ideally, we should cooperate on a common translation. (This is clearly directed in the Church documents, where only one vernacular version is to be permitted in a single area). However if this is not possible yet (I don't think we should give up on this), then it seems unwise to proceed with such a great leap forward without the others.

3. The instructions clearly tell us that the Eastern Catholic Churches should carefully think of the ecumenical impact of everything we do. This is a major point, and I would have much to say about this. (The ideal would be for our Church to prepare a joint publication with our Orthodox sister Church, and I do not think we should abandon hope of this either). But for now, can I ask if even one Orthodox bishop, scholar or churchman been asked for their opinion with regard to our proposed translation?

It is clear that you feel that this whole discussion is inappropriate and hurtful. I am so sorry you feel that way. I sincerely regret any offence I may have given, because of my opinions in this matter. I can only repeat again, that I have nothing but respect for everyone on the commission, and real esteem for their priesthood and churchmanship.

However, I believe that this discussion is appropriate. For the Liturgy does not belong to the IELC, or even to the Council of Hierarchs. It does belong to the Church. It is right that it has been circulated for our discussion.

This forum is only one sample case, but I can assure everyone reading this, that the new Liturgy is being widely discussed by our clergy and people in many places. This is not bad, but rather good! And of course, I can only speak for myself here in this place, but I assure you that I have been astonished at the amount of interest the new Liturgy has created. I have heard from clergy and religious and laypeople, thoughts and opinions that have made me more bold in discussing my thoughts here.

Dear Professor, please accept my apologies if I have offended you by my opinions or by my positions about the proposed Liturgy. My views have never been a secret, and anyone who knows me well knows them. But until now, all those members of the commission with whom I have discussed my objections have understood that my points were not personally critical, but rather addressed only to the proposed texts themselves.

I may be proved wrong, and of course the Church will decide. It is not ultimately damning to be wrong about something. I have been wrong about things before. I am sure I will be wrong about things again. If I am wrong, I will admit it. If the IELC is wrong in some aspects of the proposed translation, then I hope they will be willing to accept that too.

If you are right, and I have washed my stichar inappropriately, I am sure I will be censured, and I will accept the punishment and consequences. I will accept the censure and punishment, knowing that I spoke my mind clearly, even in error, upon a matter that is important to me, and to which I feel strongly about as a member of my Church. I will accept censure and be silent if I am told to be silent. I can happily live with that. It would be harder to live with myself, if I said nothing, or only grumbled in private, about my thoughts in this matter.

The matter is being widely discussed, and I am grateful for this.

I will accept that my criticisms have been altogether negative. I will admit that these texts and the music contain many positive points as well, and some felicitous phrases which I would welcome. As a teacher, I know it is unkind to offer only criticism, and so perhaps I should have restated some of the positive points? But for now (as probably no one wants to read a post already this long), I will offer three more constructive suggestions, if I may?

1. I think that part of my disquiet comes from an ambiguity in my mind. I think a distinction has to be made between a pew book, and a liturgicon, and I wasn't clear on this point. Clearly the latitude involved with producing a pew book for parishes, containing normal abbreviations and helpful notes and directives in a parish setting, is one thing. Such a pew book is based upon a liturgicon of course, and it also reflects parish custom, and common use. I think making this distinction would have helped me greatly. I would have thought that producing a translation of the complete Liturgicon would come first, and this obviously would have a great deal of authority and importantce. Basing a popular and useful pew book on this complete liturgicon would be another matter. If what is proposed is a pew book, along side a liturgicon, then that is interesting and would be helpful. But to my mind the complete Liturgicon (as described by Father David under the title "traditional liturgy" should have been produced first, and then a pew book could be based upon this. I suspect this may answer the question about Rome's approval. Did they think that they were approving a pew book with reasonable abbreviations for parish use? In such a case they were not approving a change in the "traditional Liturgy" or asserting that the Ruthenian Recension be revised.

2. You are right of course, that no translation will be perfect. It is also true that no new translation will be universally welcomed. It will be painful when it is issued. If my thoughts and reflections here on this forum only serve as an insight into possible objections, then perhaps some of these objections can be forseen and prepared for, when it is promulgated in whatever form is finally agreed. This time of change will be a major turmoil, as the clergy are told to celebrate differently, and as the people are told to sing things differently (this pain must not be underestimated). Every revision and change will have to be explained and defended, and this will have to be done on the local level by the clergy. If the clergy are not supportive of this change, and willing to do this at this time, I dread to think of the consequences when it is announced. That is not to say that they are not, but I think as a minimum task, a careful and thorough consultation with the clergy in the parishes should be undertaken first, before any decision is made. Without their support and willingness to educate the faithful, and help them through a time of transition and change, the consequences will be dire. I will not say what I think the result of this consultation will be, but I know that I would answer for myself, that we have more important things to do right now, and more important and grave issues demand our energy, then to focus all our efforts on accomplishing this revision of the Liturgy, texts, rubrics and music. But I would recommend this consult first, because I could be wrong, and the clergy may be strongly enthusiastic to undertake this great task just now.

3. I would recommend a "pilot" program, where a few willing parishes, and willing priests and deacons and cantors, would undertake to "pilot" the translation and new rubrics and music. Such feedback would be very helpful. Those who have been circulated with the new texts and music have to undertake comments and suggestions at their desk. This is very difficult, and something that looks great on paper and sings well to myself, I have discovered, sometimes just doesn't work in Church with the congregation. Other things that I would have thought to be "not quite right" (strictly speaking), have been taken to heart and prayed and sung with ease and devotion. I know much of this work has been piloted at the seminary, but I do not think it is unfair to point out that the seminary is not a parish, and even if seminarians and the staff are able to pray the texts and sing the Liturgy, that does not mean that those in the parishes are ready or able. If the proposed Liturgy and music is to be taken to the next step, I would encourage that the next step be a further period of trial in a number of willing parishes, who are able to undertake the time to offer serious 'feedback' and suggestions for fine tuning. Some phrases which read fine on the page, just don't pray outloud in a parish setting, I have encountered this. Some melodies which are beautiful, just don't sing in our style of congregational singing. Before these are set forth in a widely published printeds and definitive book, I think this step would be helpful.

Professor, may I please repeat one point I wish to emphasize? Because I have criticisms of the work circulated, does not mean that I have anything personally against any member of the commission. Until now, I have counted them among my brothers and friends. Perhaps that is no longer the case, and I will regret that. When I spoke with many of them before, they did not take personal hurt from my opinions, and I am deeply sorry if they do so now. If it is slander to disagree, then I am deeply sorry, but in the end, my views about this work are what they are. My opinion of the individuals involved remain what they are, and each one of the commission commands and retains my deep respect and esteem.

Elias

[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

Fr. Elias wrote: "This time of change will be a major turmoil, as the clergy are told to celebrate differently, and as the people are told to sing things differently (this pain must not be underestimated). Every revision and change will have to be explained and defended, and this will have to be done on the local level by the clergy. If the clergy are not supportive of this change, and willing to do this at this time, I dread to think of the consequences when it is announced. That is not to say that they are not, but I think as a minimum task, a careful and thorough consultation with the clergy in the parishes should be undertaken first, before any decision is made."


With any change I think this is the step which always gets underestimated. But like in most cases, just because a new "pew book" gets published doesn't mean it gets used. Heck, some eparchies are still sending out the grey or green pew books to our missions (the ones with all those High Mass notes in them) while ignoring the Gospel advice not to pour new wine into old wineskins. How many pew books does a cantor use in a single parish now? Personally, I have up to four publications before me when cantoring, including one text version (with no music) that reads like a dissertation with footnotes and all - not very user-friendly.

Call it trickle-down promulgation and acceptance. It is the Ruthenian way.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it. I can see priests not liking the translation and then simply not using it. If they don't like saying "our bishop, who God loves" and thinks it is a selfish translation or monopolization (an episcopal "ism") on God's love then they will not say it. As Harry Lewis once sang, "It's as simple as that."

The laity ignored our clergy before, and our clergy ignored our bishops before just like our bishops ignored Rome before, so what else is new? Priests will still use Orthodox publications and cantors will still prefer older scores of music because it flows better. Many parishes will continue as if the translation and new pew books never happened like they've done so many times before. Yawn! Will the authorities enlist liturgy police to check up on our clergy? After 100+ years in this country, why start now?

I would have to agree with Fr. Elias in that we have other more important things to worry about than translations. Will we have parishes in the next twenty ... err, ten years? Is LEADERSHIP only excercised in liturgical matters because it is considered the safest place for change to occur? We attempted to change some particular laws and got set back quite a bit with much remorse. If we want to experience leadership then it is in the more critical areas that we need to address. Without new clergy we won't have to worry about straightening out our liturgy. We won't be around. It's as simple as that.

In looking at the application of a translation or rubrics or music in a parish setting, has anyone even studied those parishes that are ALREADY THERE rather than hand-pick feedback? I continually get the feeling that we enjoy too much re-inventing the wheel. Maybe if our bishops went out to the people in their parishes they will see what is and is not happening. Like some family reunions its funerals and marriages that bring the family together; must it be like this also in our parishes? Must we only see the rest of the church people at parish anniversaries and dinner parties? I know a few parishes that are quite up-to-date liturgically and haven't seen an "overseer's" crown in almost twenty years!

Just my thoughts.

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

This, of course, does not reply to the substance of the arguments, but the thread began when the Administrator presented the Liturgical Instruction and then questioned whether the new translation is following the spirit of the Instruction. Again, this is not in regard to substance, but simply to canonicity - please note that the same authority that issued the Liturgical Instruction has also approved the IELC translation of the said Liturgy. Any argumentation has to take this into account.

Second, certainly we began translation before Liturgiam Authenticam. Again, with great respect for Fr. Elias and his position, nonetheless, before any response can be made, details of where the translation is inaccurate must be put forward, general statements only leave us guessing. The IELC is rather conservative on language, actually. Greek cannot be translated into English, which has a rather different structure, the same way Greek was translated into Slavonic by Nicon, who made a very slavish translation.

To Father David, I have several questions to which I would appreciate an answer.

First, is the new translation going to be treated as the "typical edition" of the Divine Liturgy for the Metropolia?

Second, if the answer to the above is yes, how will the new typical edition relate to the Slavonic typical edition?

Third, if the new translation is to be treated as a typical edition, and represents a redaction and abridgement of the Slavonic typical edition, will parishes and monasteries be REQUIRED to do what is in the new translation AND NO MORE, or will the new translation be treated as minima that must be observed, to which communities can add elements in the official Ruthenian recension according to their custom and spiritual needs?

Thank you.

Thank you, Fr. David, for your comments.

To be a bit more exact, my original comments addressed both rubrics and translation.

I do admit surprise to find that we have met all the requirements laid out in the Liturgical Instruction. I had thought that specific answers to my original six questions could not be provided.

I feel very strongly that we should not distance ourselves any further from the received liturgy of the Ruthenian recension. We should not make any changes in the translations until all English speaking Byzantine Churches can work together to produce one typical edition of our liturgical books based upon the official ones published by Rome (that is, at least the Catholic Byzantine Churches and preferably the Orthodox ones as well). If changes are to be made, I think that those seeking to make the changes need to effectively demonstrate not only that the changes are needed but also that they are the correct ones, that they work within the context of the liturgy, and that these changes are well upon their way to being embraced throughout Byzantine Orthodoxy.

Regarding Liturgiam Authenticam, I think that it would certainly be prudent to review the translation in light of this directive to ensure that there is no possible issue with accuracy and that the test is absolutely faithful to the original so that we do not further separate ourselves from the rest of the Byzantine Churches. The articles that I have read (and I admit up front that I am uneducated) indicate that the Roman Church is reviewing translations speaks clearly about translating in an exact manner and pretty much condemning any innovation. If the word is "Vladyko" in Slavonic the only possible equivalent in English would be "Master" and not different titles for different types of clergy (or so it seems to me). And, of course, this is only the very beginning dialogue!

But perhaps the IELC has already done this and the Commission on the Eastern has specifically weighed in favorably on the translations and rubrics in light of Liturgiam Authenticam?

Admin

Fr David wrote:


Certainly, no one disputes the canonicity. I think the Administrator has asked several good questions. Approval from Rome does not mean that the Instruction was followed, however. Perhaps there were good reasons for not doing so. These are questions that the faithful should be able to ask. It is also not unheard of for something approved by Rome to be re-considered and changed again (for example, our particular law).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

"If changes are to be made, I think that those seeking to make the changes need to effectively demonstrate not only that the changes are needed but also that they are the correct ones, ..."

I am getting the feeling that no matter what is said here will not be satisfactory. For 100+ years our clergy have changed our liturgy - beyond recognition in some places - and no "demonstration" was ever needed then nor has an apologia been written for them no matter how wrong those changes were. I sense a lack of respect and support for our church leaders.

On another thread I received this response:

"Would it not be better to seek the counsel of our bishops in how we can support them in restoring ... [fill in the blank] to our Church?"

I would like to ask the same question, but this time with the liturgy in mind.

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. When things were really happening in the 50s let's say (or so I am told) like icnonostases being ripped out, there was no explanation given to the people. I am told the faithful reacted very poorly, it was shoved down their throats and now they think they should not have an iconostas. Perhaps the same can be done here...just like the good ol' days, ram it down their throats with no explanation or catechesis. Then 50 years from now those few that will be left will be defending it to the death saying that this is what they always said and did? (I am obviously being sacracastic here.)

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Dear Bob,

Respectfully, I do not think you have correctly identified the crux of the matter. Of course education and preparation is pastorally important.

For this reason among many others, I have the greatest respect for my brother and colleague Father David. His willingness to help us here in this place to understand some of the proposed texts speaks for itself. His regular publications in the newspapers of our Church, and his dedication to teach and speak when he is invited is an example to many of us. He has dedicated himself to just this work, and I wish to credit him for all he is doing. I offer the example of Father David, as the evidence that education and liturgical formation is a value in our Church.
The question at hand is precisely what we have been asked. The text and music has been circulated for comments and discussion. The question is, "Is this correct, can it be improved?" That is why it was circulated, and opinion solicited. So, we are looking at it and discussing it.

When the new text and music is actually approved by our hierarchs, then it will be a time for careful preparation and education, to help, encourage and empower clergy and people to embrace it.

For now, our opinions have been sought. And this is taking place.

Elias

Fr. Elias,

I am told that the correspondence that circulated was rather specific in stating that the text is not subject to comment only the musicality is at issue here. The text has already been approved. Am I misinformed (as usual)?

Bob

I ended the whole post (not divided into paragraphs for some reason mind you) with the admission it was sarcasm. Of course, there is truth in it, YOU KNOW THAT.

A friend and I rcently discussed this issue and the key is going to be preparation of the faithful.

I too have the greatest respect for Fr. David Petras, he alone cannot do the work of informing all those who need to be informed. The local pastors have to do their part and the faithful and cantors have to prayerfully consider what is at hand (and at stake) and respond in an adult and Christian manner.

If I betrayed my tru opinions, it is again, poor writing skills.

Bob

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]