I reiterate that I was not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears in the latest working documents of the IELC. This is my last word on the subject, I am not lying, but I will not respond further on this subject.
I am posting a new version of my review of Fr. Serge's book. It is still incomplete, though I hope to finish in the next few days. In this format, footnotes are lost, but are available on my web site,
www.davidpetras.com. [
davidpetras.com.]
"Contents copyright � 2006. All rights reserved."
I am copyrighting the review, as some recommended to me in private messages. However, certainly on this site, there are no restrictions, and whatever I say can be quoted for the sake of comment. This is just for the sake of outside publication.
Serge Keleher, Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I. The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. (Pittsburgh: Stauropegion Press, 2006). 280 pp. Plus Appendix.
Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work.
It should be noted, before beginning, that the October 2004 draft is not the most current. Another draft was issued June 4, 2005, which will modify some of Fr. Keleher�s remarks.
Chapter 1 is an apologia (defense) of the author�s right to critique the translation. I certainly would not deny him that right. He admits (p. 11) that the original Ruthenian Recension (by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Rome, 1941, in Church Slavonic, but not cited in this chapter, he refers to the translation of that text by the Pittsburgh Metropolia in 1964/65)) can be revised, but accurately states the question of whether the Proposed Draft is an appropriate revision (p. 12) One might ask the further question whether his critique meets the principles of constructive or destructive criticism. On p. 10, he quotes Archbishop Quinn, who defines destructive criticism as �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority.� (P. 10)
Chapter 2 is entitled �The Controversy and its Historical Setting. This chapter contains much valuable information. In regard to the interchange between Bishop Daniel Ivancho and the Oriental Congregation in 1953, the Congregation granted part of what the Bishop asked for, precisely because these particular practices were not latinizations, except for the very troublesome consumation of the gifts during the hymn, �May our mouth be filled... � This has been corrected in the newest proposal. The Congregation granted him only what he asked for - a temporary dispensation, though no time limit is mandated. In reality, the only really important issue remaining from this is the question of when the Royal Doors should be opened and closed. We will return to this question.
Fr. Keleher then tells the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. I was a participant in that story. Fr. Keleher sees it as the promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon, and indeed, that was the goal of Bishop Emil, depending on his advisors, chiefly Fr. Eugene Chromoga and Fr. Victor Herberth. At the time, I was a young priest, recently returned from studies in Rome. This also was my vision. One problem of interpretation ever since, however, is the fact that Bishop Emil did promulgate it in what was then labeled as a �pastoral fashion.� Most of the litanies were made optional, that is, they retained the same status as previous systems. Even in the primitive days, before and after the 1941 Roman recension, priests felt obliged by the law to say all the litanies, only they did them silently. Sometimes, as at the small litanies, the faithful would chant the responses, �Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; To you, O Lord. Amen.� It is difficult for us today to understand the legalistic mentality of those times. Today, if litanies are not said, they are not said, even silently. The net result was that, even if the 1986 promulgation of the Ruthenian recension - and it was seen as such - did not make the recitation of the litanies �facultative,� it nonetheless had the positive effect of making more of the litanies public than Bishop Emil�s 1970 promulgation.
It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension. On p. 40, he moves from history to speculation. He quotes Fr. Lambert Beauduin to say that one must experience a Liturgy before one can reform it. This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it. Of course, Lambert Beauduin was not referring to the 1941 Liturgicon, nor probably to any discrete written text. To �experience a Liturgy� would certainly mean to participate in it and in the ways it brings us to God. One could truly experience the Byzantine Divine Liturgy - even the 1941 version of it - without some of the litanies - that is, the prayers, the hymns, the rubrics, the incense, the colors and light, the word of God and the taste of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Here I must digress a bit from the review of his book, and I apologize. One of the problems I see from this whole affair is that the claim is being made that nothing else but the literal execution of a certain written text will suffice. This is, then, a textual problem, and one that leads to different conclusions depending on the premises from which you begin. Meditate on this: can you experience a human meal, the organic foodstuffs, the table conversation, the refreshment of the body, without having dessert? Can one come to faith in the resurrection of Christ without reading the Lukan account? One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the antiphons and, indeed, I have seen that happen many times. Yes, there is a problem in what you can omit and what must be there, but we can discern this, for that is why we are human beings inspired by God. We can make these kinds of decisions. The Divine Liturgy is for us, we are not for the Divine Liturgy. We might even be able to fulfill the vocation of the Church to be faithful to our Eastern heritage without saying the two small litanies. We are not slaves of the text to that degree.
Fr. Keleher ends the chapter on history with a long quotation from Fr. Taft.(pages 41-45). The quotation is solid and beautiful. It rings quite true and mentions a number of important Eastern litrurgical practices that must be experienced for it to be true and authentic. In chapter 6, pp. 131-133, Fr. Keleher lists what he likes about the 2004 draft. This list is small, but it touches on some of the points made by Fr. Taft. The basic disagreement remains - I think that the Liturgy as envisioned by the Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does respond to Fr. Taft�s challenge, finally, and even in details. The problem is that it does not meet Fr. Keleher�s criteria.
Chapter 3 deals with �the process of secrecy.� No one likes to be kept in darkness about a process that is going on, and this has been the case with the deliberations of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission for about ten years now. Perhaps he is right and there has been too much secrecy. It was the method decided upon in order to encourage the members to greater courage to express their honest opinions. The more cynical might grumble, �to protects their asses.� I did not like working under such secrecy, and more openness might have defused much of the criticism pouring out now. The opinions of the people, though, were not totally ignored. More than half the members of the Commission are pastors, who, it is felt, would be in sympathy with the people�s needs and desires. Though the complaint might be made that this is not adequate, that the people should speak for themselves, nonetheless, it was not therefore completely ignored. At the same time, the tempest that has been raised did teach me a little about human nature and secrecy. In the Roman Church, liturgical reform is carried on from above, the central authority commissions new books, and then they are promulgated to begin on a fixed date. When this occurs, though, there is usually an uproar, but eventually the Church conforms (well, more or less, which proves there is a process of reception). It has been pointed out by some that this doesn�t happen in the Eastern Church, though the Studite reform of the office, the Niconian reforms and the Moghilan reform might indicate otherwise). In each case, though, after a period of reception, the reform itself is accepted as the normative text. Thus, Rome found it difficult to reform the Tridentine reform (the Vatican reform is still in a period of reception).
At the same time, I have learned that if action is not taken from above, nothing will happen. Liturgy is inherently conservative. If people don�t relate to the Liturgy any longer, they usually don�t call for a reform, they just drift away. If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. This was the pattern we have seen in 1965. The Divine Liturgy was translated into English, this was a major reform which changed the liturgical experience of the people decisively for all time. There was an uproar. Eventually, it was accepted, after a fashion, and, now, when the situation is being reviewed, there is another uproar. The point is that if you open the process to all people, nothing will ever be able to be properly addressed.
This is not disrespectful of the people�s position. The Liturgy is for the people, which includes the clergy, who do not cease being a part of the people by their ordination. The reality of the praying Church is that anyone, even with the most rudimentary knowledge of theology, is a part of this praying Church, as St. John Chrysostom so often eloquently witnessed. A problem found in all the story of the Church, but especially today when a business or technological education predominates and very little theological knowledge or formation is given, is that the people do not have a formal knowledge of the Liturgy (while they may well have a very deep experiential knowledge) and are, in truth, ignorant of teleology of the Liturgy or of some of the potential that the Liturgy has to bring them closer to God. If I tell them, �if you hear the presbyteral prayers,� you will understand the Liturgy better, they may say, �what are these �presbyteral prayers.�� If they actually hear them, then they may understand better. I have confidence that people will respond to good liturgy sincerely celebrated.
The fact remain that while many people experience the Liturgy in a healthy way, others do not, nor want their experience to be challenged. Some people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Experts are needed - perhaps not so much to lead us into a new land, but to save us from our own folly. I would hold that some liturgical reform is desperately needed. We no longer live in Niconian Russia - we have experienced the rise of technology, the atomic bomb, the holocaust of the Jews, and, indeed, of many peoples, the devastation of World Wars, we cry to God from our hearts. How can this people be reunited with their God? The Byzantine Church has remained aloof from these problems. In Russia and Greece, the major Byzantine territories, the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular is being resisted - even by the people, who perhaps cry, �do not bring us into contact with these problems, keep it obscure.� We need, however, to experience the mystery of God�s redemption. If the Liturgy is to speak to us, it must be in our language, and it is clear from the very structure of the Liturgy, that when it �goes� into the vernacular, the structure is going to change. This is why you have �pastors� in the church, to help guide the people. Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response to help guide them to God, based on the authentic liturgical experience of our church. They have made the determination that the presbyteral prayers, which especially express the anamnetic aspect of the Liturgy - that is, that we are remembering our Lord Jesus Christ, in our midst, is important and crucial for our age. Fr. Keleher, of course, thinks differently, cf. Chapter 11.
A universal consultation would have precluded any action from the beginning. I feel that a limited consultation might have been profitable, but this was not the path chosen. I can understand from the present reaction why the shepherds are gun-shy. Even so, the process was not elitist or gnostic. When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people. I myself have written a book, which has been printed but not yet released, but which has been public in the newspaper articles. There will also be visual aids. My only regret is that this project is moving so slow that it has given some an opportunity ot condemn the Liturgy before it is even given a hearing.
Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of �Inclusive Language.� I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I�m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean �extreme� - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some �text� in which the Spirit can write clearly. The proceedings of the Liturgy Commission are confidential, so I speak only of myself, and that this is a controversy which has swirled around me and in which I have not taken a leadership position. The commission are not out and out feminists, that is not the issue.
However, in his book, Fr. Keleher has pointed ten instances of discrete horizontal �inclusive language.� I will speak of these only generally. I would first like to note that the letter from the Oriental Congregation recommended some use of horizontal inclusive language, which, I suppose, shows that Rome is not as monolithic as we would suppose. Some have suggested, of course, that the Oriental Congregation is wrong on this point and should conform itself to other dicasteries, but I would guess that this would mean that the other dicasteries could also be wrong. As mentioned, one cannot get into this without �extreme� emotion.
In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term �lover of mankind,� Philanthropos, �mankind� being labeled as a sexist term. This could actually be easily solved, saying simply �Lover of humankind.� It means exactly the same thing, avoids gender exclusivity, adds one syllable, and is not a �neologism,� since it has been around since the sixteenth century, as the Oxford English Dictionary has pointed out. Of course, it is not possible to propose this without �extreme� emotion, and those opposed to inclusive language generally go ballistic at this suggestion. Why? I think because it is an easy fix. They don�t want an easy fix, but to force �feminists � to use more circuitous language that can be more easily ridiculed. �Humankind� then is rejected as bowing to the �feminist agenda.� The critics point out that �loving us all,� is ambiguous, and as much as I am in sympathy with the problem, I think fairly that it is a double standard. �Man� can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it�s always clear from �context.� As clear, I think, from �context,� as �lover of us all.� The divine title philanthropos is particularly a Byzantine problem, and it occurs so frequently. If there is going to be such trouble over the gender problem, I would propose that we simply use �lover of humankind,� and in other cases conform to what has been approved for the Roman Catholic Church in America. It is undoubtedly too late for this suggestion, however.
What should one say about �feminism.� I would certainly hold to a sound theology, which would hold that men and women, as human persons, are equal in dignity and redemption but not in role. In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for �extreme� emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the �text,� the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed. The Pittsburgh Metropolia, nor the Oriental Congregation, nor for that matter the Holy See, has control over the language used in the world. This is the problem that the Church has not adequately faced. The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church�s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church�s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of �text� in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.
There is in the background another problem that has not been addressed. This is related, but getting off-topic a bit, so I�ll just mention it. As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. I think the central spirituality of men is fatherhood, either spiritual or physical. The role of a father is to bring out the best in the potentiality of his children. In regard to physical children, sometimes fathers abuse this by forcing their own image on them. Fathers frequently do not know how to relate to their daughters or their wives, or how to bring out their best potential. I tell my seminarians over and over again, if the church says that the priesthood is a male role, then you must be a spiritual father to the women under your pastoral care. You must bring out their best spiritual potential, not put them down, but men often do not know how to do this. Our culture does not teach this. The challenge to priests and fathers in these days is unbelievably high pressure, so it is no wonder that men sometimes �crack,� and become abusers.
Chapter 5. �The Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father John Chrysostom.� The author first expects full information and responsibility for a text that was not intended for general circulation, and which he has made available on his own cognizance. To expect full responsibility for a text intended only for interior circulation certainly requires a good deal of chutzpah. Information and formation on this new text is being made available (cf. above) to the priests and faithful of the Metropolia. Unfortunately, we do not have a branch office in Dublin. [p. 71, the Exarchate was established in 1924, not 1925.]
Most of chapter 5 consists of quotations from various documents: the commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, by Neophytos Edelby; other commentaries by Victor Pospishil and Ignatius Dick; the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996, and others. Most of the material is to buttress his thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as little as possible. For Keleher, as applied to the Ruthenian Liturgy, this would mean following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though he does allow for occasional exceptions. One cannot disagree with these documents, and I would reaffirm the principle of fidelity to our Eastern heritage. Since the Eastern Church is mostly Orthodox, that would include a fidelity also to Orthodox principles of Liturgy. This would be a given, and I would probably extol the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik even more than Keleher as a magnificent work of scholarship, a jewel of Byzantine liturgical history, and an accomplishment which cannot be given enough praise. Indeed, in my priesthood, I have striven to make it my ultimate model, and to eliminate all latinizations from Ruthenian practice. I have not always been successful, and the most serious latinization in my opinion is the use of pre-cut particles rather than the comminution of the ahnec (lamb) for Holy Communion. I do not hold with Fr. Keleher, however, that fidelity to the 1941 Sluzhebnik necessarily includes reciting all the litanies.
The next problem I would address is that of ecumenism. In general, the See of Rome wants us to be as faithful as possible to our Eastern heritage, so that the Orthodox will not be scandalized by latinizations. Again, I have no difficulty in fidelity to Orthodoxy, but since becoming actively involved with the official dialogue (the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation) since 1983, I have acquired a new sensitivity to our relationships with the Orthodox Churches. On the ecumenical level, the method of uniatism to unite our two churches has been disavowed. This means, certainly, no piecemeal unions with parts of Eastern Churches and no proselytism. It does not mean that the Eastern Churches in union with Rome must cease to exist, nor, and this is important, cease to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of their own faithful. The original vision of Rome saw us as a tool to unity, as a bridge to Orthodoxy, but the �bridge theory� has fallen with the disavowal of uniatism, if, indeed, it could have ever been effective with the bulk of the Orthodox Church. There is, of course, a variety of opinions about the Eastern Catholic Churches among the Orthodox, and all of these opinions are more or less negative. The most negative is that we Eastern Catholics are a betrayal of Orthodoxy, an abomination upon the face of the earth, and that any attempt to look like Orthodox is the tool of proselytism on our part. We should simply become the Roman Catholics that we are. Other more moderate Orthodox are much more realistic. They know that the present-day �Uniates� are not the ones who betrayed Orthodoxy, and they look forward to our return to Orthodoxy. The first group, naturally, would be totally uninterested as to what we do liturgically, its all a sham, Roman Catholicism in Orthodox clothing. The second group are often interested in the liturgical life of our churches, but it would never form a motivation for their reunion with Rome. So this vision, that if we are good and faithful to our Orthodox heritage, we will foster reunion, is completely baseless. To put it in common language, �it ain�t gonna happen.��
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody�s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don�t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions. We also have the advantage of excellent scholarship on liturgical matters, which can be used for our advantage. My conclusion is that the most Orthodox thing we can do is act for our own spiritual welfare. However, what it seems to me is that there are some who want to take away our independence and enslave it to a vacuous and ineffective ecumenical program. By not allowing for our own dignity, they make us the ultimate �uniates,� a self-proclaimed tool to try to win over the Orthodox.
Father Keleher then turns his attention (pages 117-127) to a number of discrete issues: the introduction of the Anaphora of St. James, the public recitation of the Anaphora, pontifical Liturgies, concelebrations, extraordinary ministers of Communion, liturgical and street dress of Eastern clerics. Since little of this has to do with the text of what he calls the �proposed recasting,� and despite the temptation to a liturgiologist to comment at length on each point, I will skip to Chapter 7. His comments on reciting the Anaphora aloud are, of course, relevant, but I will return to that in my comments on chapter 11. I have already mentioned that we disagree on the stage of the process of the �recasting, � and his positive comments in chapter 6.
Chapter 7 is quite brief, and calls for the restoration, as least, of the full Third Antiphon as found in the textus receptus. The 1941 Sluzhebnik, intended for the use of the priest and deacon, does not include the texts of the Antiphons, so this is a problem for more recent editions intended for people�s and cantor�s use. The disagreement between the author and the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission working draft is obvious, and I have no subtle background to add.
Chapter 8 then turns to a more minute examination of the working draft. Chapter 8 deals with problems of rubrics and chapter 9 with problems of text.
In chapter 8, a short philosophical discussion of the lack of need for absolute uniformity is concluded with the observation that Bishop Nicholas (Elko) had a �campaign� against the Ordo celebrationis. He then turns his attention to some of these details, and I follow his enumeration.
1) deals with the question of the opening and closing of the Royal Doors. In general, the Greek Church opens the Royal Door for the Divine Liturgy, while the Slavs keep them closed except when you have to go in and out of them. In 1953, the Oriental Congregation gave Bishop Daniel (Ivancho) a temporary reprieve from the Slav practice. This is not a question of �latinization,� since the Roman liturgical worship space has no doors between the holy table (altar) and the congregation. However, the Liturgy Commission and the Council of Hierarchs has extended this �reprieve,� on the basis that it is a genuine Byzantine usage (albeit Greek) and the �zeitgeist� is more generally for openness. I tend to think that keeping the celebration behind closed doors is more of a clericalization than shutting the doors, though waiting until the Little Entrance to open the doors would not be too obtrusive.
2) requires no comment. 3) introduces the issue that the working draft had more elaborated rubrics and titles for sections of the Liturgy, as, for example, �Great Synapte.� The titles were added only to indicate more clearly the structure of the Liturgy. Since they have no effect on the celebration whatsoever, and would probably be welcome in the people�s book, I can ascertain no issue here. (Cf. Also 11)The original rubrics were very jejune. I don�t think this was for the cause of more freedom in rubrics, but to keep the books smaller. The Liturgy Commission felt that today the rubrics need to be spelled out in more detail, not to restrict the celebrants, but to help them know what to do. The deacon is, at any rate, going to go to his �usual place.� This just spells it out. This is probably a partial reason why an ordo celebrationis was published in 1944.
4) was dealt with under the antiphons section. 5) the response should be reintroduced. Readers usually respond, �And to your spirit,� anyhow.
6) This incensation honors the gospel, about to be read. In the Liturgies, incensations have tended towards uniformity, always incensing everything, as at the beginning of the service as a sign of purification. This was a conscious decision to focus the incensation on the gospel itself, which are words written in a book. They do not stay in the book, but are proclaimed aloud for the hearing of the people. Therefore, those who hear the word are also censed.
7) to 10) deal with the Great Entrance. The rubrics as written here reflect more common practices today. I will not quibble about these points, but I see no major theological issue here. Certainly, to carry the discos on the head is no longer common practice, though I hear some are trying to restore it. I follow my teachers� opinion here, that the purpose of this was to balance the diskos, which in Haghia Sophia could be huge. You can still see examples of these very large diskoses in Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, though I have also seen very large diskoses in use in the present-day Russian Church.
[The proper term for this is �diskos,� or �discos,� not �diskarion..� The author here seems influenced by the Greek suffix �-ion� indicating a �thing,� such as �poterion,� �adrinking thing,� or epitrachilion,� a �thing around the neck,� or �phelonion,� etc. However, here the word model is rather �asteriskos,� the �little star,� placed over the bread in the �diskos,� which is not an �asteriscarion.� I apologize for going off-topic, but the term bothers me.]
11) -12). The author shows here that he understands the discussion concerning the title of the prayer. He then calls it the �correct� title. I do not want to quibble about this, for it is certainly the traditional title. However, there might be sufficient reason to modify this if it helps the celebrant and/or people understand the intent of the prayer, �bring us to your holy altar, enable us to offer gifts and spiritual sacrifices ... � A similar comment might be made about the profession of faith. Again, the placement of the title does not affect the celebration in any way, but might help us to see that this is indeed a liturgical unit, that our faith is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a unity in love.
13) The placing of the words, �The doors! The doors!� in brackets was done because it was felt it was an archaism. Many priests omit the words even without brackets. I myself say these words, as a reminder that we now enter the point of the ancient disciplina arcana. However, the Commission felt differently, and even I do not discern a major theological/ecumenical issue here.
14) The commemoration of the various classes of saints and of the Theotokos is a commemoration of the dead. The Theotokos died, though now she is glorified in heaven. The Divine Liturgy is offered for the Theotokos and all saints, for they are saved by virtue of our Lord�s death on the Cross and resurrection, though, from our perspective, this is already an accomplished fact. Incensation is always done for the deceased, as evidenced by the deacon�s continuing the incensation at this point, �and he mentions the names of the departed for whom he wishes to pray.�
15) The aitesis before the Our Father may be prayed in its entirety. This is an option. The author recommends retaining both instances of the aitesis (after the Great Entrance and before the Our Father,) though not making a great point of it, as an opportunity for using different languages. Dual language litanies, however, are quite rare, and if done, there are numerous other ways to accomodate them. Though I do not recommend this, I recently attended a Greek Liturgy where the shorter phrases were repeated in both English and Greek. The first aitesis is suppressed as Fr. Taft recommended. At any rate, the question posed is peripheral, since if the Liturgy were to be celebrated in Church Slavonic, there would be no translation issues.
16) seems to be a very trivial point. 17) criticizes the working draft for placing the rubric after the Oir Father rather than before. Of course, rubrical inversions like this occur, as, for example, the rubric for the deacon to say �Lord, have mercy,� at each incision of the ahnec at the Rite of Preparation, given only after the priest has done the incisions! Here it is the problem of where to place a rubric when there are two possibilities. Maybe it would have been better to place it earlier, but, at any rate, one reads the rubrics before the Liturgy is celebrated. If one celebrates reading the rubrics as you go along, it will be a very long celebration indeed.
18) It is now the common practice in the Pittsburgh Metropolia for the priest and people to say the Prayer before Communion together before the priest partakes. The period of silence alluded to here is not as long as Fr. Keleher makes it out to be. That �the Byzantine Liturgy does not appreciate silent periods,� (page 158) is a generalization. Certainly during the Great Entrance of the Presanctified a silent period is prescribed, and there is rarely a problem at this point of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
19) The deacon does not receive before the priest, but the priest gives the deacon the Holy Body before taking it himself, as he only has two hands. (20) seems to be a trivial complaint.
21) In common practice, the particles are pre-cut and there is no comminution. I would like to see the restoration of the distribution of Communion from the ahnec (lamb), in fulfillment of the Holy Apostle Paul�s words, �Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:17)� The author here seems to want to complicate the situation, though we elsewhere get chided for expanding rubrics. The author also seems to want the rubrics for the transfer of the gifts expanded (22), though there are few practical difficulties here. In regard to footnote 98, page 162, most priests leave the spoon in the chalice, and I have never seen it �fly out,� which could as easily happen during the distribution of Communion!
23) The use of variant Ambon Prayers has become very common. What does it accomplish? - a further meditation on the feast or mystery being celebrated. These prayers are certainly found in tradition and have become very popular, not only among Catholic but also the Orthodox. For example, they are found in service books published by the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese of Johnstown, and also by the Holy Theotokos Monastery in North Fort Myers, which cites the Ieraticon of 1997 (Apostolica Diakonia, Athens), pages 138 amd 193 as recommending them.
24) The deacon cannot hold his orarion during the consumation of the gifts. Russian deacons just tie it at the side. This seems a practical solution when Ruthenian deacons wear the longer style oraria.
25) It might be well to eventually restore the antidoron. Certainly, nothing prevents a priest from doing this, and very often bread is dtributed in the Ruthenian Church for mirovanije, which, of course, properly comes from the office. 26) seems to raise the question of whether it is appropriate to sing �eternal memory,� after a Divine Liturgy. In parochial life, it is certainly done frequently, whether or not there is a rubric.
Unfortunately, Fr. Keleher�s conclusions do not follow from his text. That the rubrics do not always follow exactly what is found in Church Slavonic or the Ordo celebrationis is no indication whatsoever that they were not given warranted attention. If they had been rewritten �in a scientific way,� as the author suggests, would he then make the same objection, that the original rubrics were not attended to? In any case, for centuries, we have lived with rubrics that are very sparse, and sometimes even conflicting (the author points out that there is no rubric to close the Royal Doors after the Great Entrance in Niconian and Niconian influenced editions, footnote 2, p. 141), but this has not led to chaos, as he rather casually opines.
