www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1

Author: Serge Keleher

Title: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy � 1
The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

Stauropegion Press
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Cost: $20 + $4 per book shipping & handling.

This book is a commentary on the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy according to the 12 October 2004 �final version�.

Since this book is relevant to the current discussion on the proposed revision of the Divine Liturgy I am creating this thread as a placeholder for specific discussions of the book.

Father David Petras has written a review of this book and offers it at his website. Click here to read it on Fr. David\'s website. [davidpetras.com] I have posted the full text below to make it easier for Forum readers to access it.


RESPONSE TO FR. KELEHER [davidpetras.com]

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 - di 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 gospels, 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.� ON 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.

The fact is that while some people experience the Liturgy in a healthy way, others do not, and do not want their experience to be challenged. Many 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 that 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, most 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. That certainly requires a good deal of hubris. 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 much 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. It is difficult to 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 strive 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.

Review written by Father David Petras [davidpetras.com]

My thanks to Father David for his thoughtful and welcome review of my recent book. The Internet makes it possible to exchange ideas and information much more easily than was the case earlier, and with the likelihood that the matter will still be fresh in everyone�s mind. I have been looking forward to Father David�s review, because I remember his excellent review of Father Casimir Kucharek�s book a number of years ago.

Father David remarks that the sub-title �explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation�. This seems strange � the book�s content surely makes it clear that I am not pleased with the translation, but the phrase �the real reason for the book� implies something occult or clandestine � had that been the case I would hardly have put it on the front cover and the title page! But never mind.

Father David writes 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.� [He then fails to provide even one example of anything in the later draft which would cause me to change my remarks.] The October 2004 draft is clearly labelled � This is a final version � � and that appears on every page, as can be seen from the copy in the Appendix of my book. But then, back when I was an undergraduate (before the invention of the wheel), we all knew that one must understand deadlines: there is the announced deadline; there is the final deadline, there is the absolutely final deadline and then there is the real deadline. May we take it that the 4 June 2005 draft is the absolutely final version, with the real version yet to come?

I have not admitted; I have written, quite frankly and at some length, that the original �Ruthenian Recension� of 1941 can and should be revised, in the light of sources which have become available since 1941 (I myself am among the prime movers in the publication of the 1639 Leitourgiarion of Saint Peter Mohyla, which I cite in the present book) and in the light of scholarship since that time. And I have stated that an unavoidable element in such a reconsideration and revision is a thorough familiarity with the Ruthenian Recension as it stands � which is a major part of the problem at issue; since Pittsburgh never implemented those books one may severely question whether Pittsburgh is the place which should unilaterally modify them.

Dear me. Father David strongly implies that he finds my criticism �divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority� � in words which he takes from a quote I provided from Archbishop Quinn. Perhaps Father David should count the number of references in my book to the published writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and explain how they show that I am without reverence for authority. Whose authority am I supposedly lacking in reverence for, by criticising a draft? By definition, a draft does not itself have authority and it is normally circulated precisely to seek criticism. I did not steal my copy of the October 2004 draft, nor did I bribe anyone to give it to me � I didn�t even ask anyone to give it to me; it was sent to me with a request for my criticisms. I am also unable to appreciate why the point that such a recasting should be done in cooperation with other Greek-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox makes me �blind to a larger vision�. I would have thought that I am calling for a larger vision. Since I have no ambition whatever to write service-books for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, and have never attempted to do so, I am not in competition for the privilege. �Divisive� and �intemperate� are problematic terms � but Father David is aware that I did not create the existing difference of views on the matter in question � and Father David states this elsewhere in the review. Whether my book is �intemperate� is not for me to judge.

Father David finds that Chapter 2 contains much valuable information. I would agree with Father David that most of the dispensations granted to Bishop Daniel by the Oriental Congregation did not involve tolerating latinizations. I well remember that bizarre practice of sotto voce recitation of synaptes and so on � it always struck me as a form of madness!

I think I have discerned a typographical error in the review; Father David writes that �One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the gospels�� I suspect strongly that he means the two small synaptes between the Antiphons . But there are typographical errors in my book as well, so I too live in a glass house and should not throw stones!

Father David writes that I tell the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. As it happens, I was a guest at Bishop Emil�s consecration (and at the cocktail party memorable for the Latin reading of the Papal Bull). I well remember the high hopes and early promise of Bishop Emil�s episcopate. I cannot be certain after all these years, but I think that it was on that occasion that Father David and I first met.

Father David asks if we can experience the fullness of a human meal without partaking of dessert. In view of the larger discussion: the question might better be �can we experience the fullness of a human meal if no dessert is offered?� The answer is that on occasion, yes, we can. But if dessert is never offered at dinner, we will all agree that something is missing (as the little boy said on learning that there would be no dessert that evening �you mean I ate all that for nothing?�)! Even those two small synaptes do have a point � and it is interesting that the final version (as distinct from the absolutely final version) leaves out the two small synaptes but leaves in the prayers with which they are associated � and then prescribes that the ecphoneses shall be offered silently! There are certain occasions when we may omit the entire Enarxis � but if it were never used we would miss it. Why do those two small synaptes, which take little time, exercise Father David?

So far I note two basic points on which Father David and I disagree. Father holds that the time is ripe for a recasting of the Divine Liturgy, which is appropriately done by the Pittsburgh Metropolia. We differ there. Whether the proposed recasting of October 2004 fulfils Father Taft�s criteria which I quote on pp. 41-45 is a point of serious disagreement. Father David thinks that it does; my position is that it represents yet another attempt to stonewall the Ruthenian Recension.

Chapter 3 (on secrecy) seems to have struck a nerve, and Father David agrees that perhaps my position is right. He then suggests that secrecy was and is used to give the commission members greater courage to express their honest opinions. There is a case for that approach in a theoretical discussion. In a decision-making process, on a matter which will touch the deepest spiritual life of a substantial community, that argument is much weaker. There are tried and true ways of letting the substance of the argument be known to those interested without necessarily stating precisely who said exactly what. It is possible to circulate written papers on particular topics (if need be without giving the name of the author) and invite responses. There is no choice these days; one must attempt to ensure that the people involved know what is going on, and have ample opportunity to express themselves. A broad, free discussion can result in both the clergy and the faithful gaining a sense of �ownership� of the result � and that is no small advantage. Nowadays, with the use of the Internet, it would be possible to circulate such papers far and wide at little or no expense.

Father David cites the Nikonian reform � that tragedy resulted in numerous horrific martyrdoms, a schism which at its height separated the official Russian Church from 20 million faithful, who eventually succeeded in restoring their own hierarchy, a terrible persecution and, perhaps worst of all, a weakness and cynicism in Russian Orthodoxy which made it possible for Emperor Peter I to turn the official Church into an enslaved �Department� of the Russian government, unable even to convoke a plenary synod for over 200 years. I trust that upon reflection Father David will agree that this is not a model to follow.

Of course Liturgy is inherently conservative � I pointed that out myself in the book. But Father David�s stated position that �if
action is not taken from above, nothing will happen.�If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction� shows a striking contempt for the clergy and faithful. Given a peaceful opportunity for fair and open discussion, there are enough educated people in the Ruthenian Metropolia to keep the discussion on a reasonable level, realizing that while Liturgy is inherently conservative, it is not immobile and the immobilist position is unrealistic.

Father David writes that �many people do not even have the first clue as to what the Liturgy is supposed to be�. That is not an argument in favor of reform; having another upheaval and uproar will not teach such people what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Father David has demonstrated my point: the need for a patient, lengthy process of education and development. Archbishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, of blessed memory, often said that the time to introduce a change in the Liturgy is not when the experts think it should be done, but the time when our faithful are increasingly asking us �well, why don�t we do . . .� whatever it is. My book mentions Father Daniel Donovan. When he was in Old Forge, it was the time when what is now the OCA was starting to move the Liturgy into English. Father Daniel, who is nobody�s fool, preached in English but did the services in Church-Slavonic until the parish council formally asked him to begin serving in English as well, and assured him that the parish would provide the necessary books and other materials. Result: he had no trouble whatsoever with the move into English. Had he attempted to force the process, there could have been serious violence.

Father David argues passionately for the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular. But I have not in the least argued against it � to the contrary, I have been a vernacularist since the nineteen-fifties and have done considerable work on translations myself. He then links this matter to the question of the offering of the Anaphora aloud. As I asked in my book, so I ask again: did the recitation of the Canon of the Roman Mass aloud since Vatican II lead to the sort of results Father David wants? But anyway, I�ve devoted an entire 25-page chapter to this matter; I would ask Father David to re-read it with an open mind. The Anaphora is crucially important, not only for our age, but for every age, including the age to come. But it is a long way from that statement to the insistence that the Anaphora must always and everywhere be offered aloud. It is far more important that the Anaphora should be taught and the faithful brought to understand it.

Again Father David argues that a universal consultation would have precluded any action! Why? It might have meant a longer process, but that is no unbearable flaw. It seems truly strange that Father David has so little trust in the clergy and faithful of his own Local Church.

Father David would like to �table� the discussion of the �inclusive language� issue. That could easily have been accomplished � by refraining from introducing �inclusive language�. Has there truly been a massive demand from the clergy and faithful of the Pittsburgh Metropolia for �inclusive language�? I rather doubt it. But there is another book from another author in the pipeline, so I shall let the question rest for a while. However, Father David yet again mentions a mysterious letter from the Oriental Congregation � so long as that letter is not available for all to read, no one is obligated to take references to it with great seriousness.

I have devoted several chapters and many pages to specific criticisms of the translations of certain words and phrases. Father David responds to none of these criticisms, with the single exception of the matter of inclusive language. The same applies to rubrics � I devoted a 30-page chapter to rubrics, and the only comment from Father David is a brief mention of disagreement regarding the Royal Doors. Are we to take it that he agrees with me on everything else?

My thanks to Father David for one correction � any new edition of my book will have the date of 1924 for the establishment of the Pittsburgh Exarchate.

My book certainly makes the October 2004 �final version� available � and not before time � but, while I certainly accept responsibility for the decision to do that, it was not done purely on my own initiative. I was asked by several friends, including a fair number of clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, to write a critique of the draft. I could scarcely have done that without letting the readers know what, precisely, I was critiquing. If that requires hubris, well, I have often been called a fool, but rarely have I been called a coward. The draft has nothing on it resembling any assertion of a copyright. Again, it purports on every page to be the �final version�. As for the availability of information, it was priests and faithful of the Pittsburgh Metropolia who appealed to me to write this book, not my own faithful in Dublin (where we do not serve in English anyway). If Father David would like to have a branch office in Dublin, well, that can be discussed! Meanwhile, Father David himself is always welcome to visit here.

But speaking of hubris, consider this. Father David actually writes that it is my thesis that �the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their own traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as much as possible�!!!!! I am unable to believe that this is really what Father David intended to write, since there is absolutely nothing in my book, or in the rest of my published works, which justifies the attribution to me of the idea that �the Eastern Catholic Churches should � distance themselves from the Orthodox as much as possible�! Either this is a lapsus calami, or it is someone�s idea of a joke. In either case, I will appreciate an immediate retraction and apology.


But back to a more credible matter. It is, of course, true that the Eastern Catholic Churches (more specifically in this instance, the Greek-Catholic Churches) may and must act in response to the spiritual needs of their own faithful. One might ask whether a process of liturgical recasting which deliberately excludes any consultation with the faithful, or even with most of the clergy, is responding to much of anything, but never mind. We need not, in one sense, become �cardboard Orthodox�, trying to provide the appearance of Orthodoxy without the content (no doubt there are still a few such people around, but I have not met any in recent decades, thank God). If we are to make any sense even to ourselves, let alone to anyone else, the theology of our Liturgy must be our own theology � and if it isn�t, the answer is not to change the Liturgy but to allow the Liturgy to inform our theology. Father Cyril Korolevsky made that point very well indeed 79 years ago.

I certainly do not, to take only one example, advocate the �repristination� of the practice of receiving Holy Communion once a year at most! I could go on with a long list would be neither edifying nor useful. But to write, as I did (in accordance with documents I quoted) that our translations should be in reasonable conformity with Eastern Orthodox translations, that we should be cautious and unhurried in introducing changes in the Liturgy, that we should be conscious that we are, whether we like it or not, part of a much larger community, is not to argue in favor of the restoration of Jansenism.

Moreover, there is also the middle distance. As I wrote in my opening chapter, what the Pittsburgh Metropolia does will have an effect on the other Local Churches of our common tradition. This is all the more true in the context of the other Local Churches to whom the Ruthenian Recension applies (either in theory or in practice). For Pittsburgh simply to sail off on its own is a questionable procedure.

Repeatedly Father David opposes any suggestion of the practical use of the 1941 Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, but he never quite explains his objection. If he considers it pastorally unsuitable, has he taken into account what happens in parishes where it is used as part of a good pastoral program? If he considers it objectionable in itself, what are the bases of his objections?

Except for that one quote, which really is outrageous but which I strongly suspect is no more than a typographical error (probably the inadvertent omission of an intended negative adverb), I appreciate Father David�s review and look forward to continuing the discussion. If he cares to provide me with the later draft of June 2005, I shall be happy to rewrite the relevant chapters of my book. Meanwhile, he again has my thanks. Several people are undertaking to write reviews of the book, but Father David is the first to produce one. Who gives quickly, gives twice!

Serge Keleher

Father, bless! Be assured of the prayers and support of me and many others in this vitally needed work - there has been no other forum or opportunity to make this vital (vital is not too strong a word) information and comments available considering the circumstances before us. I will be ordering the book post-haste.
FDD

Unfortunately, the review that appears on my web site is an unfinished project. I announced that I would be posting it, and then when some went there and did not find anything, I decided to post what was done up to that point. So more will be coming. I do apologize to people, if in any way I implied that I do not have confidence in the people of our church. The reality is that I have received much support and encouragement from most of the people I meet. However, I say that only with trepidation, because I know on this Forum, where the official line is that everyone to a "man" is opposed to the IELC work, I will be "flamed" for saying that.

So, look for further updates on the review, about which I will keep you informed,

Father David

My thanks first to Diak (since he wrote first) with my hopes that he may enjoy the book. My thanks also to Father David. And if it's any consolation, I rather doubt that all the participants in this Forum, to which I am quite new myself, obviously, since I just registered today after the Administrator announced my book (for which I am also grateful) are unanimously opposed to the work of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission; in some other postings I've found several participants who are strongly supportive of the commission's work. But I'm no judge; the only thing I'm really aware of is the October 2004 draft.

If I may be allowed the point, I suspect that the impression of massive opposition on this Forum arises as a direct result of the absence of any other place where one may register one's criticisms in the assurance that someone will read them - even just the lurkers such as I was until a few hours ago!

Serge Keleher

I don't have anything to say about the Liturgy, but I have a question:

What is "Stauropegion Press"? I've never heard of anything by this name in the US, but I have some old books printed by the "Stavropegial Institute" of Lvov (now Lviv)--are they related?

Maybe Pittsburgh is the New Lviv?

Dave

I thank Father David for letting us know that the work was still an �unfinished project�. It was brought to my attention only that the review was released. I reposted it so that it might be read by as many people as possible, in the interest of fairness. Had it been labeled �draft� I would have either not posted it or posted it with the title �draft�.

I do take issue with Father David's belief that the entire Forum is opposed to IELC work. There are those on the Forum who have supported it. I myself have indicated that there is much good work hiding behind an inadequate standard. All that needs to be done to fix the problems is to return to an adequate standard and then to modify the work to adhere literally to that standard. [The standard, of course, being the Ruthenian recension (text and rubrics) and without the offensive gender neutral language.]

I agree with Father David that the topic of gender neutral language is a difficult one. But he is the one who has placed it on the table, since he has led the commission to include such language in the texts of the Revised Liturgy. But then I am sure we will discuss these in more detail as we take the chapters one by one after people have a chance to order and receive their copies.

I look forward to Father David�s completed review and will post it here for everyone to read. I will comment further at a later time.

Admin

That's a new one; please explain.

Stauropegion Press is related to the Stauropegion Brotherhood, which has been in existence for over 400 years. The Stauropegion was set up in 1589 by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and managed to obtain a privileged position in the publication of liturgical books. In 1709, the Stauropegion entered into its very own communion with Rome. The Stauropegion continued to print books and hold various related programs until World War II, when first the Nazis and then the Communists confiscated their buildings and stopped all their publishing and educational work. Like so many other things, the Stauropegion continued in the underground, saving what could be saved in the way of books, icons and similar relics. For a time there was an effort in Chicago to revive the publishing work, but that ceased, for reasons which I don't know. Almost the last public appearance of the Stauropegion on its home ground occurred in 1939, when Blessed Nicholas (Charnetsky) presided at celebrations of the 350th anniversary and offered Pontifical Divine Liturgy at the Stauropegion Church of the Holy Dormition, in L'viv.

By a pleasant coincidence, when the Greek-Catholic Church was emerging from the underground, I happened to meet the remaining members in L'viv. They urged a revival of the publishing work in the diaspora, partly because it was not yet possible to begin such work in the then USSR and partly because the rapid development of modern printing technology meant that even if it had been possible to regain possession of the premises and equipment which had belonged to the Stauropegion before World War II, it would be unthinkable to use that equipment for printing again.

Should you visit L'viv (which is worth doing, by the way) you can see the exterior of the Stauropegion buildings - with the name "Stauropegion" chiselled deep into the lintel above the entrance to the complex. The Stauropegion Church is now in the hands of one of the autocephalous groups, although that may yet change. The Stauropegion Church is noteworthy for its architecture, its iconostasis (which came from another old church edifice in Western Ukraine and doesn't quite fit the dimensions of the Stauropegion Church, but so it goes) and in particular the stained-glass windows done by Kholodny, one of the early leaders of the 20th century revival of iconography. It's nearly miraculous that the church edifice was not seriously damaged during World War II.

Serge Keleher

Dear Fr. Keleher,

Thank you so much for writing this book. I was able to get my own copy and just finished reading it. I do hope that Fr. David or someone else on the committee that drafted the liturgy will go point by point and explain the translation choices.

And I think that the discussion of inclusive language must certainly be untabled, because there are clear theological issues at stake. I have asked Fr. David a few times in this forum to explain why the innacurate but inclusive "for us men and for our salvation" is preferred to the accurate "for us men" or "for us humans." While he is at it, he can explain why "Lover of us all" is preferred by the committee to "Lover of mankind" or, as Patriarch Gregorios says "who loves every human being," both of which are accurate renditions of philanthropos. There are more inclusive mistranslations, such as "fathers and brothers" becoming "brothers and sisters," that I would like to see explained as well. And why cannot my two daughters be called "handmaids of the Lord" when they receive communion?

I must say as a member of the laity, I have been made to feel like an idiot and have had my intelligence insulted by the debate on this issue. I recently spoke to two priests of our metropolia about the liturgy, and they told me that I shouldn't speak about it because I wasn't an expert, and I wasn't on the committee. Causa fina est. But I'm no idiot--I have a Ph.D. myself (in philosophy), know some Greek, and can tell when a translation is inaccurate or not, although I usually need to use a grammar and a lexicon.

I also resent very much Fr. David's assertion that "Unfortunately, most proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. " I am a proponent of a masculine spirituality, as are most of my friends, and none of us think this means "putting women down." It is an argument by innuendo.

Finally, I am very disturbed by Fr. David's assertions about the Orthodox. He says "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." This was most certainly not the sentiment of the attendees at the recent Orientale Lumen conference. Archbishop Vsevelod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church specifically said that Eastern Catholics can and must serve as a bridge, a bridge between Orthodox and Catholics, a way for the West to learn about Eastern Christianity. We do have a role beyond tending to the current faithful. I dare say we might even wish to evangelize and grow!

I apologize if I have written with any vitriol. I blame the lateness of the hour and the sensitivity of the subject matter. Although I find myself in serious disagreement with Fr. David on many points, I must commend him for engaging those of us who are concerned about the new translation and revision of the liturgy. No one else on the committee has spoken up, but Fr. David has gamely taken the slings and arrows. God bless him.

Dear Brother in Christ,

Glad you like the book. It was an effort and a bit of work, but an enjoyable occupation.

As to inclusive language, I suggest patience for a short while - another book, from another author, is on the way and will discuss that issue at length.

The title of "handmaid" was very much sought after in the early Church, and the Holy Theotokos applied it to herself. So I also fail to grasp what can possibly be wrong with it.


No one can make you feel like an idiot unless you accept that judgement - so don't accept it! Neither ordination to the priesthood nor appointment to a committee can bestow infused knowledge on anyone. To tell you that you should not even speak about the Liturgy because you are not an "expert" (a problematic term in itself) and you are not on "the committee" smacks dangerously of elitism and gnosticism, both of which Father David disavows.

There are several negative jokes about committees - you probably know some of them yourself. A perennial favorite is the observation that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee!

The claim that masculine spirituality means putting women down has no place in a serious discussion. Are we supposed to venerate only feminine saints?

Bishop Kallistos, who is no mean Orthodox theologian and enjoys the respect of much of the Orthodox world, has also said and written that the Greek-Catholics have a legitimate place and work to do in the encounter between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Father David seems to have taken the negative thinking of some Orthodox as speaking for the whole of Orthodoxy.

Father David truly deserves recognition for engaging with the critics - one wonders where the remaining members of the committee are hiding.

Again, thanks for your compliment; I'm glad you like the book.

with every blessing,

Archimandrite Serge

I'm thankful for the two previous comments and have often wondered why the prevailing opinion seems to be that we are not a bridge between East and West. I suppose if two groups are stubborn enough nothing will assist them to safety.

I suspect the translation committees very insularity ("secrecy") has been its own worst weekness. One might successfully resist arrogance when one also isolates oneself but it is very difficult. But how does one lead if one ignores those he is to lead. How would a shepherd lead if he doesn't know his own sheep?

CDL

Dear Carson,

The experience of the late unlamented USSR bears you out. The Soviets did everything possible to isolate their people from the rest of the world, and succeeded to a significant extent. The result was that the USSR fell drastically behind in such areas of life as scientific achievement.

The very idea of saying, unrequested, "I know better than you do and therefore I shall decide what is good for you" does not readily succeed these days - even when it is solicited (as one does on asking one's physician for a diagnosis), one retains the right to seek a second opinion from another professional in the field.

Nowadays people tend to tolerate such chutzpah only from computer gurus, plumbers and auto mechanics.

Serge Keleher

Very Funny and oh so true!!! :rolleyes:

Dear Father Archimandrite Serge,

Welcome to our forum!
It is an honor to have you here.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice