As the feast of Saints Peter and Paul has just passed the other day, it marked 8 years since the RDL has been mandatory in all BCA parishes.

I was wondering if people here could share what has happened at their parishes in the past 8 years since the RDL has been implemented.

Have vocations increased?

Has attendance gone up?

Have the number of females attending and becoming active increased because of the inclusive language?

Have the number of missions started gone up?

Has singing increased?

Thanks in advance.

Monomakh

Hi Monomakh. I subscribed to this thread more with the intention to read what others say than to speak ... but meanwhile I have come up with a question of my own ...

This is a passage from the document Violations of Vatican Directives Regarding Liturgy in the "Revised Divine Liturgy" promulgated by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh 6 January 2007 (Ruthenian-RDL-Violations-Summary.pdf):

My question, for anyone who might happen to know (or have a good guess) is: Is ^^ this something that many Ruthenian Catholics want to see happen? (I can't say I've encountered many who do, but then again that's not saying much since I'm not very in-the-know regarding Ruthenian Catholics.) And, for that matter, has the Congregation itself given any indication that it might do so?

No vocations at my parish since me.
Attendance has gone down. A lot of funerals, a few baptisms.
No more women than before. Two females read the Epistle now.
I think there may be one more mission then when the RDL started.
Singing remains the same.

Did I mention we still use old books and not the RDL.

I don't want anymore directives from Rome. Time to grow up. If asked I am sure 95% would respond "Huh?" The five percent that would have said yes left already.

Our Eparchy has seen two married priest ordained, and two more deacons studying to be priests in the seminary. We also have had a new celibate priest and deacon ordained in the last year and a half. My parish has one man in formation right now with the new class of deacon students. Our eparchy has six deacon students. Also, a new monastery has started in the Northwest.


My Eparchy has started at least three to four missions (or outreaches as we call them) in the last couple of years.

The RDL (while not perfect) combined with solid orthodox Eastern Catholicism is working out west, in my opinion.

Though not perfect, as said above, it's more important to reawaken the proper liturgical phronema in the sense of offering more services, regularly; It doesn't have to be everyday, either. I think the people of the parish need to have that sense of empowerment, and - dare I say, permission to take ownership of their liturgical life. But, part of that is the proper education on why we have these services, in the first place. I can go on and on, though.

Hello Nelson,

Are you referring to Exaltation of the Holy Cross Monastery in Idaho or a different one? Thank you.

In Christ,
Anthony

Hello Anthony,

I am referring to Duchovny Dom, which was recently established in Weston, OR.

Pray for me,

Nelson

I've only had loose contact with the brothers of Duchovny Dom (dagnabbit, gotta stop thinking of David Duchovny :p): great guys; and Father Josef is a real builder; the place is in good hands, as long as he's looking after it.

It's long past time to grow up. But as long as Ruthenians refuse to act like adults Rome will issue directives each time they misbehave.

Yeah. 95% of "our people" have never heard of any of the official documents. Embarrassing. The people at my parish used to joke about the RDL but that's mostly stopped. They know you have to lump it or leave.

Ruthenians have lost about 6,000 people since 2007. Almost 1/3. I'm told about half of that is through death and the rest just disappeared.

Maybe things will change for the better. Bishop Andrew has gone home to the Lord. The generation of liturgists that gave us the RDL is retiring. At least in Parma no one really cares to enforce the RDL and people are creating their own books. It's a bust and everyone knows it.

I concelebrated Divine Liturgy at the Fort Collins, Colorado outreach last Sunday (their first experience with a deacon). The 3:00 pm Liturgy was well attended at the RC host parish and it was very vibrant with good singing led by a choir which can read music (a great attribute of the re-published pew books.

There is much interest and a good portion of the congregation are Roman Catholics. Father Michael takes special interest in the children who gather around for the Gospel and homily.

Back East here, it is difficult to retain young cradle Byzantines, but I don't think we are an exception. We probably have more vocations from former RC's and Protestants than we do from cradle Byzantines. So that should tell you that we aren't dying. As Mark Twain said, "reports of my death are premature."

Personally I have been in contact with several Byzantine "converts" or 2nd/3rd generation Byzantines whose parents/grandparents left for the Roman Church but are potential vocations. It will take time for them to learn and become entrenched in the Eastern Church but I expect that we will being seeing an increase in vocations in the next decade.

Duchovny Dom Monastery's address is:
Duchovny Dom
Byzantine Catholic Men's Monastic Community
57894 Hwy 204
PO Box 460
Weston, OR 97886

For those of you on facebook, the monastery doesn't have an official presence but you can keep up with it here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nwbyzcathmensmonastery/?fref=ts

Thank you for that.

I feel like saying "Thank you, you just proved my point" except that technically I can't BC I didn't make a point. But it's the thought that counts, right?

,
You'll need to remind me of our misbehaving and the directives issued by Rome. The last one I remember was about us misbehaving by ordaining married men after we were told to stop.

I took my family to the Holy Orthodox Church.....eight years ago.

Yeah, once every eight years is enough for me too.

Kidding, kidding!

Actually Peter, the last time I was in an Orthodox church was eight years ago (where the Presbytera argued with me and told me to leave the Ukrainian Catholic church and join Orthodoxy etc. etc.).

If you come across an Orthodox church that is a tad more ecumenical or else less vituperant - please do let me know!



Alex

I think the word you are looking for is: "vituperate."

But I prefer my Holy Orthodoxy without the ecumenism.

Yes, "vituperative" et. al.

As for Holy Orthodoxy, sir - I admire your zeal in that regard.

Happily, there are Orthodox and then there are . . . ORTHODOX!!!



I will stick with the former, evharisto poli . . .

Alex

There are two? I think not. I'll stick with the Holy Orthodox Church.

Ευχαριστώ πολύ.

Eek, that's neither holy nor Orthodox. I think there were some anti-social, anti-unity, isolated some where around what was formerly called Ephesus. The few that didn't want to involve themselves with the worldwide community of believers now live in Selcuk and are cultural Muslims living in the rubble of former Christian civilization. There are a few towns like that.

Dear Brother Recluse,

You know what I meant sir! But that you are "Wholly Orthodox" - that is a certainty.

Again, I admire you for that.

Alex

Because it changes the flavor, or because it cools it down too much? (Not to get off topic of course.)

Of course it is. Ecumenism takes many unholy forms.

ecumenism can take on orthodox and holy forms as well - being opposed to all ecumenism is not holy nor Orthodox

Let us be zealous for the Tradition of our Holy, God-bearing Fathers; but may our zeal always be balanced by love.

Well, I'm not going to get in an argument with you about what is "bad ecumenism" and what is "good ecumenism." That might be an interesting thread for you to start.

I feel that there are many ways that we can unite: against the horrors of abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. We can also unite to help the sick and suffering. At the same time I'm not going to walk into a protestant worship service and justify their Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist.

It could be quite a vast subject to discuss.

Oops. Sorry, I thought we were talking about drinks.

Yes, vast.

Without trying to discuss every person's understanding of the word "ecumenism", I'll just throw in this from my own experience: I have many times come under fire, on a certain CAtholic Forum that you may know of, because I support the Balamand Document "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion" ... but what's interesting about this is what has not happened: In none of those cases did the other Catholic(s) say that I'm too ecumenical.

Good one!

Interesting. I have never given much attention to that document. It did not carry much authority....and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Churches of Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Czechoslovakia were not represented. But may I ask......what was the basis of the criticism levied at you.

Exactly, that is why it does not make much sense to denounce the entire subject defined as 'the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian churches' without equivocation, as you have done. I could understand disagreeing with various methods - which I do - but not the entire idea.

Really? Where have I done that? I do not support ecumenism. But I never told you my outlook on ecumenism. And yet you came out in full attack mode. Perhaps you'll start a thread about it. Otherwise, please stop with your insulting assumptions.

I apologize for being partly responsible for taking this thread so far off topic. I think the issue of ecumenism would make for a lively thread. I believe that discussions regarding unity and doctrinal issues can be fruitful. I am against participation in groups such as the WCC and the NCC. But the subject can get quite nuanced, and I must admit, I am probably less prone to most issues of ecumenism than most. I don't apologize for that.

Having said that, I would like to go back on topic. I was Roman Catholic for 38 years and Ruthenian Catholic for a number of years until the RDL was mandated. I was having some doctrinal issues at the time and had one foot in the Orthodox Church. But the RDL was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back....especially the gender neutral nonsense. I took my family to Holy Orthodoxy. I made many wonderful friends amongst the clergy and laity within the Eastern Catholic Church (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Melkite). I am also curious as to how the RDL has affected the Ruthenians after eight years. I am also curious as to whether any of the other Eastern Catholics followed suit with a similar type of revision to the Liturgy.

I apologize as well, but I know a good number of holy men and women who's life sacrifice was for the 'good kind' of ecumenism, not the bad WCC/NCC Marxist type.

Your history is filled with the best kind of ecumenism in the most personal sense, you as a person in the image and likeness of God carry the history and Tradition of the Romans and Ruthenians with whom your were in fellowship and now more perfectly the Orthodox Church. Instead of being against the concept, you are living it the best way you can. That's all anyone is asked to do, how and where we reach as individuals vary.

Well, being an outsider, for me the RDL issue is a case in point of what happens when the Church Slavonic falls into disuse . . . (The UGCC employs a kind of "cross" between Church Slavonic and modern Ukrainian.)

Apart from gender neutrality, what else about the RDL is controversial?

Again, for someone like me, to pray in English would already be controversial in and of itself . . .

Alex

Basically the whole "Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past" part of the document.

In various statements I've read on the subject, lack-of-obedience-to-Rome is frequently mentioned. Note of course that opinions vary about whether that's an issue or not (contrast for example Recluse's posts about the RDL with Dostojno Jest's "as long as Ruthenians refuse to act like adults Rome will issue directives each time they misbehave".)

Interesting. For me (also an outsider wrt the RDL) the issue would be not praying in the vernacular (be that English or whatever language).

To each his own . . .

I'd rather pray in Church Slavonic than in English because if Slavonic was good enough for St Andrew the Apostle - it should be good enough for us all!

Alex

All Apostles spoke Russian and prayed in Church Slavonic! Is outrage to pray in English!- Father Vasiliy Vasileivich, COROC spokesman.

Apologies for the slight drift off topic...

The above UGCC comment is true (after a fashion) where the translation of Patriarch Joseph is still in use. Unfortunately, there is a a constant drive to make the Basilian (aka 'Synodal') translation normative across the UGCC. While it may be a more 'modern' Ukrainian translation, is it not a better one - on grounds. That said, the Basilian translation into Ukrainian is not as bad as the RDL.

When do you think "Circular of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church to Ruthenian Ordinaries" (Prot No. 1219/28, Rome, September 10, 1941) will be followed? The promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy strictly prohibits following the 1941 promulgaton of the ordinary form of the Ruthenian liturgy.

Or is the ordinary form so awful that it cannot be allowed?

Don't you think relying on directives from the Vatican to maintain your Eastern patrimony is part of the problem?

Personally, I do believe that's a factor.

There's a significant distinction between saying "I agree with Rome that we should [delatinize, not use inclusive language, etc]" and saying "We should [delatinize, not use inclusive language] because Rome said so."

Dear Kobzar,

Actually, there's nothing "fashionable" about how the UGCC liturgical-linguistic anomalies, whether Basilian or otherwise, appear to Ukrainian intelligentsia who desire the living Ukrainian language in their Church (as the Ukrainian Orthodox of the autocephalous variety have always had).

Some have commented that the unwillingness of the UGCC to bring in contemporary Ukrainian into the liturgy results not so much because of the view that the "language of the streets" (as one individual who should know better indicated to me) should not be the style employed in Church, but, even more troubling and surprising, because of the tradition of linguistic Russophilism within the UGCC . . .

Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko, an expert in Ukrainian language, discussed this at length in one of his publications. Again, don't shoot the messenger here . . .

Alex

However, this argument can be turned on its head . . .

Yes, any movement to "delatinize" should come from within a Particular EC Church sans Roman directives - in principle.

However, it has been an historical occurrence that Latinization within specific EC contexts came NOT from Rome, but through a number of other venues (of which Rome wasn't even aware).

In the Ruthenian Metropolia of Kyiv-Halych that came into communion with Rome in 1596, Latinization largely resulted from the influence of zealous EC bishops and monastics.

That is not a slight to them because union with Rome did NOT equal Latinization. The Ruthenian Orthodox (Belarusyans and Ukrainians) were just as Latinized as their "uniate" counterparts.

St Peter Mohyla and the Ruthenian Orthodox Saints of the Kyivan Baroque era adopted MANY Latin devotions to Eastern liturgical frameworks (if I was still young with a more agile mind, I'd love to do a Master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation on this very subject - unless someone knows of such a work already published).

Orthodox Christians loved the Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception and the "Bloody Vow" to defend to the death the IC doctrine. The Kyiv-Mohyla Orthodox Academy, according to Fr. Florovsky, spent a great deal of liturgical and theological energy in praising the Immaculate Conception well into the 19th century. St Dmitri (Tuptalenko), Metropolitan of Rostov, was himself hauled up on the carpet by the Russian Synod to answer charges relating to this and his other (many) Latin devotions and teachings . . . Fortunately for him, many, if not most, of the members of the Synod were Ukrainian-Belarusyan with a similar spiritual weltanschauung .

So the point I'm trying to make (and yes there is one . . .) is that Rome has found it expedient to take the lead, so to speak, in directing EC Churches to take the initiative in terms of "de-Latinizing" in order to save them from themselves (as Rome thought and thinks).

In fact, what is overlooked, even by our esteemed "High Eastern Church Wing" in the UGCC (may we be protected against that ilk . . . ) is that Orthodoxy continues to bear the Latinization it was once prone to, devotionally, liturgically and theologically, but that it somehow continues to maintain itself as . . . Orthodox and Eastern.

Certain sectors within the UGCC (and I'm most familiar with this EC Church as it is my own) would regard with suspicion "de-Latinization" movements as being simply "Russification" movements.

Also, the Eastern wingers of the UGCC tend to refer to their Church as being something of a monolith which they are slowly but surely bringing out of the Latinized "darkness" into which historical circumstances had unwittingly thrust them.

And nothing can be further from actuality. There is no single UGCC along liturgical/theological lines. There is as much variation within the UGCC in these terms as there is in the Anglican churches, not to mention the impact that things like the need for more national cultural content in the Church have on these processes (for that is what they are).

In my own parish, the priests are divided over the use of the translation of "unto eternal ages" i.e. "na viky vikiv" or "na viky vichni" which I shan't go into.

If anything, Rome's intervention from above to settle this matter would be the best thing to happen . . .

I recently had a discussion with one of our Readers in my parish who completely disagreed with the translation of the Our Father . . . When he asked me where I got the version of the Our Father that I habitually use, I told him . . . from the directive that came from Patriarch Lubomyr several years ago . . .

I didn't say anything about the Hail Mary translation . . .

Rome, where are you when some of us need you?!

Alex

Taking care of its own matters, I'm hoping.

Yes, I'm sure!

It is just that some EC circles are incapable of taking care of their own matters.

Rome should not be the "whipping boy" in this respect. We should remember the many contributions to Eastern liturgics/theology by theologians in Rome.

Latinization, as well, should not be found primarily in terms of this devotion or that (for indeed one may find similar or even MORE Latin devotions among the Orthodox!).

It is primarily a frame of mind and a lack of a sense of identity and empowerment that relies on Rome for everything.

Rome indeed has and will continue to save ourselves from ourselves.

Alex

I don't see how continued self-infantilization is going to improve this situation.

If Rome really respected the autonomy of her "sui iuris" churches, and if the "sui iuris" churches really believed in it, then it should be a lot harder to get her to intervene in things like this. As long as the dogma of papal supremacy prevails, a paternalistic and micromanaging stance will be encouraged in Rome and expected by her dependents.

Dear Swan,

Self-infantilism in the EC Churches exists not only in terms of the dependency on Rome for everything (and no one doubts that this is a problem of the first order!).

Such is also the case when an EC Church or part thereof insists on maintaining Latinisms/Latinization even in the face of Rome's directives to do otherwise.

Should Rome sometimes intervene to give an "Eastern correction" to this in Particular EC Churches?

Absolutely, I say! I speak as an UGCC insider and know that there are wings, sections etc. of our Church that falls heavily into the second category and they believe that Latinization has never affected the UGCC and that EC Churches should never "pretend" to affirm their Particularity but should, in all things theological/canonical/ecclesial be entirely dependent on the pleasure of Rome.

These sections of our Church have proven themselves to be more "papal than the pope." Will they listen to their Primate and his Synod otherwise? Not at all!

The best way to deal with this, in this instance, is with some leadership exercised by Rome.

Of course, this should only come about with the request of our Synod etc. But I don't see how things will change if Rome isn't involved.

So it is a question of Rome helping to save certain sections of our Church from their self-imposed Romanism . . .

One has to look at it from their own unfortunate perspective.

And I do.

Alex