www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy One Year and One Day - A Reflection

It has been one year and a day since the RDL (which I prefer to think of as the �Restored Divine Liturgy�) has been the official text in the Metropolia. It has, of course, been under the gun for a much longer time on the Byzantine Forum. These are my reflections.

The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has not collapsed. Some observers on the Forum have reported mass defections, but have not presented any solid evidence. I suspect there have been exaggerations. There has been a lot of resentment among the people, but whenever there is liturgical change, there is resentment. Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full. I went to a Roman liturgy recently and the congregation was probably about half the size of our eparchy . Likewise, most resentment has been that we have become too �Orthodox,� that we should just keep our old Greek Catholic Liturgy, hanging on to the Liturgy we knew in our youth in the 70's and 80's. The Forum�s cries that we must follow the 1964 translation and only the 1964 translation is definitely a minority position. Most of the priests that have complained to me are those who do not want to change the Liturgy the way they learned it in the seminary.

What I personally resent is that it has been made to seem that the complete text of the 1964 translation was in general use in our parishes and that the Council of Hierarchs has shortened it. The reality �on the ground� is that more of our parishes are closer to that text than ever before. Fr. Serge Keleher in his book praises the Mihalik promulgation in his book (pages 37-38), but the reality is that the 2007 translation has, in fact, brought the celebration �on the ground� closer to the 1941 order than did Bishop Mihalik�s promulgation, which left even more pastoral leeway. The reality of the protest, I think, is actually simple, the 2007 translation must be discredited so that certain priests will not lose the right to say the small litanies between the antiphons. It seems to me to be �overkill.� If the Byzantine Liturgy is going to be destroyed because we say, �Again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord,� �Protect us, save us ...,� and �Commemorating our most holy, most pure ... � petitions two times less than in the 1941 recension, and if the Antiphons lose four versicles (they gain one in return in the Third Antiphon), and if we do not say the Litany after the Great Entrance (Cf. Taft, The Great Entrance, p. 428) totally deforms the Liturgy, then there wasn�t much to it in the first place. This is not going to make us less Christian. Likewise, the Council of Hierarchs did not do this, it happened now three generations ago. In any case, what the Council of Hierarchs has done is certainly a restoration from the 40's and 50's, when �latinizing� priests tried to make an �American Liturgy� that was very short and did, in fact, compromise the structure. The beauty of Cyril Korolevsky�s 1941 recension is that it eliminated all latinizations, and the 2007 translation has been faithful to that spirit, even if some pastoral adaptations were made. Since 1985, the Bishops have been leading us to a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, including infant Communion, the elimination of the �filioque,� the restoration of the zeon, and a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, except for one thing: the 2007 translation has threatened a certain group of priests with omission of the recitation of 3 litanies. The great reform of our Liturgy was done in the 1950's, when we moved the Liturgy into the vernacular (a decision that is still being bitterly fought by a small minority). What surprises me is that there are observers who think that this gigantic change into the vernacular can be accomplished without any change in the structure of the Liturgy.

The greater complaint, however, has been over music. My expertise is not in music, so I will not argue the point. My reflection, though, is that the music written to go along with the 2007 translation has been more faithful to the Slavonic models, and, hence, the melodies of this music. This would cause more resentment than the texts of the translation since the more simplified melodies of the 70s� had become habitual. I see this as being healthier in the long run, but admit it will be a long run. I find it ironic that the partisans of the 1964 translation see it as a sine qua non, but see nothing wrong in compromising the music. Of course, what I�ve found on the Forum are those who turn this on its head, and criticize those who insist on a fuller melody while simultaneously not taking all the litanes. These mutual recriminations can go around and around, as it is said �for ages of ages.�

However, the greatest complaint against the 2007 translation has been the use of some �inclusive� language. I refuse to discuss this at great length, except to note two things: 1) the inclusive language has nothing to do with liturgical principles, with liturgical structure or with the meaning of texts. It is not a Liturgical problem, but a problem of social change, which is depicted as totally secular and therefore evil. 2) Both groups agree that the Liturgy proclaims the salvation of all, both men and women, but the more traditional claim that the English term �men� includes women. I hold that the actual situation os more complicated than that, that �men� does denote �males,� but has become a default word for both genders.

Finally, there has ben so little discussion of the one change that is really important - the recitation aloud of the presbyteral prayers, and particularly the anaphora. This is certainly one of the changes that would be almost forced by the return to the vernacular, for if the words can be understood, why hide them? Moreover, the presbyteral prayers - particularly the anaphora - give the theological meaning of the Liturgy, and I would hope that we are interested in that. St. Paul said, �as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26)� This is what the Liturgy is about. This is what Christianity is about, it is about the Paschal mystery, Mark 8:34-35, �Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.� Amen! Would that we would learn this truth, and it is what the anaphoras are about, particularly the Anaphora of St. Basil. The Liturgy of the Word proclaims the Paschal Mystery in its readings from Scripture and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, even more clearly, in the Anaphora. Some will scoff, reading the Anaphora has not �reformed� the church, but I say, it certainly cannot hurt and it is a giant step in the right direction of restoring the Liturgy to its proper shape. I hope that both those who denounce the 2007 translation and those who uphold it will pay more heed to this reality.

I hold that there has been no change in the �rubrics.� They have been rewritten, but do not change practice, except in the incensations before the Gospel and the Great Entrance, which have been barely mentioned on this forum. I bring this up because the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission will be meeting in July. I am certain that many of the objections - from both sides, that the 2007 translation is too �modern� or that it is too �Orthodox� will be brought up. I will mention some of the points made on the Forum, but there has been a widespread critique of the �rubrics,� but this has never been spelled out in any detail. In short, I would like to know what the Forum means when it uses the word �rubric.� Are you referring to the Litanies or Antiphons, which I would not call rubrics but liturgical structure, or are you referring to something else?

"Restored" to what? -- "They ["rubrics"] ... do not change practice" from what? What is the standard for the restoration; what is the standard for the "practice" that has not been changed? What is your reference point?

The point is NOT that the 1964 translation must be followed. The point is that one would expect a complete and faithful translation of the Recension text, and that on the premise that the Ruthenian Recension text is our liturgical heritage. It so happens that the 1965 liturgicon is such a faithful and complete translation, and the 2007 liturgicon is not. That is the inescapable fact, and that is one of the issues.



On the contrary, it has been said a number of times that there have been very few who have experienced the "full" liturgy as in the 1965 liturgicon. But again, that is not the point. The point is that from the time of the 1965 liturgicon until the Parma and Passaic liturgicons, what liturgicon was in use -- though not necessarily taken in full -- in the Metropolia? The Passaic Promulgation even states:

Again, whether or not the 1965 liturgicon was celebrated in full, it was at least available in full. There is nothing in the Passaic Promulgation that explicitly rescinds or prohibits the use of the 1965 liturgicon. (BTW, despite the quote above from the Passaic liturgicon Promulgation, changes were made to the text.) And so that means that ...



Yes, they did. And made it, an abridgment, the exclusive English text. Read the promulgation decree of the 2007 liturgicon:



This certainly is not the result of the innovations of the 2007 liturgicon and has me repeating the question: What in terms of being "closer to that text" has the RDL done that was not available before in the 1965 liturgicon?

Again, the point: The full text of the liturgy in English as a complete translation of the Slavonic text of the Recension was allowed -- was in force -- was possible before the 2007 promulgation. The 2007 promulgation now makes it impossible to celebrate the liturgy in its "full" text even if that were to be desired.

This is as close as Father David has come to explaining why the RDL was needed.

A few comments.

Father David said:
"However, the greatest complaint against the 2007 translation has been the use of some �inclusive� language. I refuse to discuss this at great length, except to note two things: 1) the inclusive language has nothing to do with liturgical principles, with liturgical structure or with the meaning of texts. It is not a Liturgical problem, but a problem of social change, which is depicted as totally secular and therefore evil. 2) Both groups agree that the Liturgy proclaims the salvation of all, both men and women, but the more traditional claim that the English term �men� includes women. I hold that the actual situation os more complicated than that, that �men� does denote �males,� but has become a default word for both genders."


He refuses to say or discuss at length who deemed the inclusive language necessary. Why is this? This is the biggest issue of why myself and others have left the BCC. I'm not your typical 75 plus year old someone who could care less (or even has a clue that inclusive language is being used! I'm sure the revisionists were banking on that fact,) and is only worried about where they will be buried from. There are younger people who were cradle Byzantines such as myself, who loved the church and left because we refuse to drink the same "social" Kool-Aid that the Latin Rite was forced to drink 40 years ago.

A poster in another thread said that himself and nine others from the same BCC parish were Chrismated Orthodox. Nine! Can a church as small as the BCC afford to lose 10 people in one shot? What is the ultimate goal here?

I wonder if Father David could explain if the OCA or any other Orthodox jurisdiction is wrong for not using inclusive language? Are the faithful going to suffer socially and spiritually? I highly doubt it.

Father David proposes that his RDL will have the same effect on our church as the Novus Ordo had on the Latin rite. Of that I have little doubt.

He writes: "Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full. I went to a Roman liturgy recently and the congregation was probably about half the size of our eparchy." Interesting research strategy.

It isn't just traditionalists who associate the new liturgy with declining Mass attendance rates. Rod Stark, a non-Catholic sociologist of religion, observes that pre VII attendance rates exceeded 70 percent (_Churching of America_, rev. ed., Rutgers UP 2005, pp. 256-257). A Catholic News Agency release from two weeks ago quotes a Georgetown researcher (again, not a hotbed of traditionalism) as estimating current attendance rates of about a quarter. Let me repeat: the share of Latin-rite Catholics who do NOT attend Sunday Mass has risen from under a third to three-quarters.

That is a huge change, and the reason for it is not hard to see. The decline began in the mid- to late-60s, implying that the most likely culprit was the Novus Ordo (although a minority of scholars like Fr Andrew Greeley blame it on _Humanae Vitae_; again, see _Churching of America_). This is not a traditionalist whine, just the standard scholarly view of a remarkable change in religious practice.

Fr David is free to tune the bad news out, of course, and he is also free to wave off complaints by saying any change will draw complaints. But history shows, whether he likes it or not, that liberalized liturgies kill church attendance. And there is no sign that his RDL will do otherwise. None.

John Murray

I think "reformed Divine Liturgy" is more descriptive.


You make this evaluation after one Mass? at one parish?



It is good to know that there are priests who also see the problems with this reformation.



Why do you "personally resent" this?


Tradition is "overkill"???


When I was in the BCC, I recall our Liturgy being shortened by the 2007 reforms.


Or perhaps organically developed?



Is it a "fuller melody" or is it more difficult to sing?


Indeed. And there is good reason that it is the "greatest complaint".



When the secular world is permitted to affect the language of the Liturgy, it is also affecting the priciples, structure, and meaning--in a secular way.

I believe that it is a "Liturgical problem".


And so the "more traditional" view has been scrapped.


There has been much discussion about that subject. Many do not care for the changes.



Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail on what you mean by "theological meaning".

I see a few problems here.
(1.) The use of "inclusive language" is problematic. It creates ambiguities which were not there before ("for us and our salvation"-does this mean "us" in the room only?). The Liturgy is no place for "social engineering". Liurgiam Authenticam wisely instructs the Latin Church not to dabble in such language, but rather to catechize as to the inclusive intent of such words as "mankind".

(2.) As Deacon Anthony point out, what we have is a legal supression of a full celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the rescension which was promulgated for the good of our jurisdiction.

(3.) There is also the issue of the 1996 Liturgical Instruction from the Congrgation for Eastern Churches which indicates that we should do NOTHING liturgically which would alienate those Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome!
I don't have any hard statistics, but my sense is that it would be very difficult to find any Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction which would be comfortable with this (RDL) translation. If anyone is aware that such a jurisdiction exists, please do let me know of it! I live in what is jokingly referred to as "Orthodox Heaven". We have a siginificant OCA parish in my town, and a ROCOR (former OCA) parish in the next town over. I showed our new text to a local, "Greek-Catholic friendly" retired OCA priest. On one hand, he liked the big, readable print, but, on the other hand, he said "why this obsession with gender"? I wouldn't dare show it to the ROCOR priest, because he thinks our older translations (Pittsburgh 1965 and Passaic 1996) are even deficient. So much for taking that instruction seriously!

I haven't seen any defections in my parish because of the translation, but we are not seeing anybody breaking down the doors to get in because we no longer use that "awful male chauvinist" language in prayer!

Dn. Robert

Fr. David,

I just returned from another great pilgrimage to my Grandfather's village church in Transcarpathia. I have experienced the full liturgical cycle all in one morning (Matins, Divine Liturgy, Vespers) with the AUTHENTIC Subcarpathian Prostopinije music. I dear say I don't think that will ever happen here in America in the "Sui Juris Byzantine Metropolitan Church of America" and that is a sad reality.

Can anyone help me upload the video clips onto this Byzantine Forum so everyone can get a glimse of what I just experienced and make their own comparisons and conclusions with the RDL?

Ung

This (and what follows) is one of a number of points in Fr. David's post that astounds me. Given that the Recension dates from 1941, the issue of the '�latinizing� priests [who] tried to make an �American Liturgy�' sounds to me like a leadership (episcopate) and obedience (presbyterate) problem, not one of the Recension itself.

aka the Ruthenian Recension; however much the work of one man, hardly his recension.



Given that the 1965 English translation liturgicon is a full translation of the beautiful "Korolevsky...recension" and that "[s]ince 1985, the Bishops have been leading us to a fuller celebration of the Liturgy," what were they leading us to, ultimately, if not the Korolevsky/Ruthenian Recension? How is proscribing the full translation of the 1965 liturgicon and mandating the abridged and modified 2007 liturgicon leading us to a "a fuller celebration of the Liturgy"? Does the 1965 liturgicon have some kind of a disobedience trigger that the 2007 does not? Again the question: In terms of a fuller celebration of the liturgy, what does the 2007 liturgicon accomplish that was not possible with the 1965?


There are practical considerations for not decimating the rite of the three antiphons as has been done, but what would be the harm in taking the full version if desired, or of taking the other eliminated litanies?

But more to the point, I submit that the whole flow of the liturgy at the Prayers of the Faithful and the Cherubicon have been SIGNIFICANTLY altered, and modified. How could that be glossed over?

One again I say, I am bewildered. I do not speak for the forum on what is meant by "rubrics", but I have asked a specific question about the rubrics: Rubric question: after Ambon Prayer . Part of my frustration is that I simply ask a question, not a challenge, and get no explanation or worse, have been told it is in the Recension text of the liturgicon or the Ordo when it is not.

This is but one example of several changes in the rubrics in the 2007 liturgicon from what is given in the Recension. Consequently, I do not understand how it can be asserted that 'I hold that there has been no change in the �rubrics.�'

Most of the points that Father David raises in his post have already been discussed at great length in threads he has participated in. I had written a fairly lengthy post to address some of these points but have decided to hold off on posting it for now. If Father David is truly seeking input on these points I would be happy to provide mine again, though it would probably be best to begin new a new thread for each of the topics.

I am immensely thrilled to learn that the Inter-Eparchial Liturgy Commission will be meeting again, and that it will revisit the Revised Divine Liturgy in light of the many objections.

Firstly, I suggest that rather than be annoyed with the disagreement with the RDL the entire Church take heart. People who do not care do not bother to argue. That people still care is a good sign.

Secondly, given the many opinions on how the Divine Liturgy should be celebrated the only way forward is to look to the standard that exists � the 1942 Liturgicon and all the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension. This standard is ours and it unites us as Church. It also unites us to both the other Churches that use the Ruthenian recension as well to all Byzantine Churches.

Thirdly, there is an opportunity here. Since people do care about their Church this good will can be put to work in healing the hurt caused by the RDL and building towards the future.

I�ve provided an action plan in numerous posts in these discussions but I will offer a brief summary again in the hopes that the bishops and commissions will use it as their objective standard:

1. Declare all of the official Slavonic books of the Ruthenian recension as normative for the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America.

2. Prepare English language editions of the official Slavonic books that are as exact as possible. The objective standard used in preparing the translations should be: 1) Completeness, 2) Accuracy, and 3) Pastoral Sensitivity. Every word in the official Church Slavonic editions should be in the English editions. This is inclusive of liturgical texts and rubrics, forwards and indexes. Translations should be literal and exact balanced only with elegance and respect for what is memorized. Nothing should be added that is not a translation of the original Church Slavonic texts, except the approval and printing information. Nothing should be omitted. If the existing translation is memorized and is an acceptable translation, don�t change it. [Look to the Liturgical Instruction and documents like Liturgiam Authenticam for guidance.]

3. Issue a Liturgical Instruction that details permitted abbreviations and changes. For example, note that the praying of the litanies between the antiphons are normative to the recension and should be taken, but are not mandatory. Also note permission to pray the Anaphora aloud while respecting the received tradition for the priest to pray it quietly (that is, to offer liberty to the individual priest in this matter).

4. Through education, example and encouragement over the course of five years slowly raise the standard of celebration in all parishes to roughly the full content of what is included the Levkulic Pew Book. But, of course, a new edition of that Pew Book would provide the complete Liturgy. Cathedrals and pro-cathedrals would lead the way and set the example.

Mandates do not work. The only way to raise the celebration in parishes is to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in a manner that is so attractive that both clergy and laity want it celebrated that way in their own parishes.

We must remember that the people did not ask for abbreviated Liturgies. The abbreviations came from those in authority. While many parishes suffer from the �get it done in 45 minutes� problem the answer is not mandates but good Liturgy. Good Liturgy is attractive Liturgy. When Liturgy is attractive 60 or 75 minutes goes quickly. When Liturgy is not attractive even 30 minutes can be beyond endurance for some.

The above principles are can generally be applied to Vespers, Matins and the other services. Music, of course, is a separate issue but principles similar to those given above apply.

I pray that the Council of Hierarchs and the various commissions already have the principles I�ve outlined above in mind. I believe that they are the only ones that can bring unity and healing to our Church.

John

I'll admit to be a liturgical simpleton, and really don't know the ins and outs of the different color books, and the 1941/1965/etc versions of the liturgies. I am curious, however, about one rubrical difference between the only older text I have - the Ordo Celebrationis - published by Eastern Christian Publications and the new liturgicon. The Ordo has several rubrical indications for opening and closing the holy doors, whereas the new liturgicon calls for the doors to be opened at the beginning of the liturgy and closed at the end.

Does this not qualify as a rubrical change?

This is somewhat of a sore point because we have a very small mission parish, and some of us spent considerable time and effort to construct doors for our portable iconostasis [hrbcc.org] that were light enough to open without pulling over the entire iconostasis with the imparted torque, only to be told almost immediately afterward that "We don't really use those anymore."

It would if that rubrical change had not been first approved by Rome in 1953. Some will be quick to say that approval was meant to be temporary, which is true, but that approval was never rescended. Leaving the doors open has become our legitimate custom, having been used with approval for over 50 years now and for many before that, and was obviously approved again in 2001.

Regardless of rubrics for the Liturgy, an Icon Screen still needs doors as they are to be shut when the Litrugy is not taking place.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ed - yes, it is a rubrical change from the original approved Ordo. And in spite of more recent approved deviations, it has never been officially rescinded. If you continue to look you will find more than one difference.

For those interested in the documents:

1955 Ordo translation; see d.) and note (2) [patronagechurch.com]

Bishop Ivancho's request; see No. 118 [patronagechurch.com]

Rome's response; see n. 118 [patronagechurch.com]

The request and reply reference section 118:

Ordo; see section 118 [patronagechurch.com]

which references footnote (39):

Ordo; see section 117, note (39) [patronagechurch.com]

Note that the footnotes are not in, are not a part of the Ordo [patronagechurch.com] itself.

The approvals/correspondences for the 2007 (2001) and 1965 liturgicons have, unfortunately, not been made available.