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

As you might notice from the book, I am a keen admirer of the present Pope and I have been reading his theological writings (in translation, since I don't speak German) for years. However, His Holiness - through no fault of his own or anyone else's - presents us with an unusual etiquette problem:

Normally, it is as rude as rude can be to refer to the Holy Father either by his name prior to his election or, still worse, by his surname. [When Hans Kung wrote about "the Montini Pope" everyone realized that Kung was being deliberately impolite.] Now, however, we have Pope Benedict XVI, who is one of the most important theologians of our time. We could not honestly claim that "Pope Benedict XVI" writes thus-and-such and cite a book by Joseph Ratzinger twenty years ago. On the other hand, the man who wrote that book twenty years ago is indeed Pope Benedict XVI, even though he wasn't at the time.

In the footnotes of the book, I adopted the cumbersome solution of giving the author each time as "Joseph [Cardinal] Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI", which is wordy but is at least both accurate and respectful.

Any other solutions or suggestions?

Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

It is an interesting perdicament. I have a book in my library by Andrew N. Woznicki entitled, A Christian Humanism: Karol Wojtyla's Existential Personalism published by Mariel Publications. It was published in 1980, one year after Cardinal Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. I think it is even more difficult a task considering how well "Joseph Ratzinger" was known prior to his election as compared to "Karol Wojtyla", who was known only in limited circles.

Not sure if there is a solution...it appears that Ignatius Press has changed all book jackets to reflect his new role. From an historical perspective, however, it is important to trace the development of his thought from "Fr. Joseph Ratzinger", to "Cardinal Ratzinger" to "Pope Benedict".

God bless!

Gordo

Benedetto the Wise

:rolleyes:

Eli the Mensch

Dear Father David, dear everyone:

Had a pleasant weekend and a most blessed Divine Liturgy, and hope that everyone else was similarly blessed. This is a response to the second draft of Father David�s review of my recent book. As I said the other day, since the review is still in process, what I shall attempt to do is discuss several points which seem of particular importance, in the hope of either clarifying or seeking clarification.

After reading Father David�s draft several times, I�ve chosen to address these matters:

1. The 1941 Church-Slavonic edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom,
2. the use of the �presbyteral prayers� aloud,
3. respect for the clergy and faithful,
4. the issue of �litanies� (the term is inaccurate, but I�ll use it today to avoid greater confusion), and
5. the bearing of Vatican II, the Code of Canons, Orientale Lumen, the Liturgical Instruction and similar documents on our discussion.


To start, then, with the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, hereinafter called for convenience the 1941 Liturgicon. Father David writes that he � 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.�
My word! He does indeed think more highly of the 1941 Liturgicon than I do � at least in verbiage. But if he thinks so highly of the book, what does he have against using it?
Somewhat strangely, Father David writes that I support �following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though [I]
do allow for occasional exceptions�. The reasoning is a little hard to follow, but it appears to mean that I propose following the 1941 Liturgicon absolutely except in those cases where I support doing something else � which comes close to being indisputable, but also comes close to being meaningless. It�s like saying that I agree with all religions except on those points concerning which I do not agree with them!

The 1941 Liturgicon (regardless of what language one uses for the service) is the official Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom for use in the Ruthenian Recension. Those who want to change it should at least explain why. Father David nowhere does this � with the single exception that he wants to use English instead of Church-Slavonic, but nobody is arguing with him on that point. I plead guilty to the charge of understanding Church-Slavonic, but I don�t usually serve in Church-Slavonic here in Dublin, and I have no wish to impose Church-Slavonic on anyone. Those who want to use it are obviously free to do so; those who do not want to use it are obviously free to use the language of their choice. We are living in 2006, not 1956, and that issue is over.
So I would seriously ask Father David to tell us, in clear language, what he finds wrong with the 1941 Liturgicon and why, and how he wants to change it � and why there is such a hurry (even the atomic bomb, which he mentions, has been around almost as long as the Ruthenian Recension, for whatever connection there may be. If he knows of some reason to believe that getting rid of the Ruthenian Recension will lead at once to world-wide nuclear disarmament, please tell us this good news!).

Presbyteral prayers aloud? The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom contains almost no presbyteral prayers, aloud or otherwise. What Father David is mis-calling the �presbyteral prayers� are in fact episcopal prayers, properly offered by the Bishop. In the Bishop�s absence, when a presbyter must perforce serve the Divine Liturgy, he offers these prayers out of necessity � but when a Bishop is the celebrant the presbyter �offers� these prayers by uniting himself spiritually to the Bishop. This is not just theoretical; when I was three years a priest I was serving Divine Liturgy with two hierarchs and several older priests, plus two deacons, and I was mistakenly mumbling the prayers in question myself. The priest next to me put up with this for a while, but when the Anaphora began he smiled and said �I�m sorry, Father, but I am trying to hear the Bishop praying the Anaphora!�. I got the message, shut my mouth, and listened to the Bishop � and have done so ever since.
If Father David will kindly read what I wrote, instead of what he thinks I wrote, he will find that I did not put myself in the immobilist position of immobile opposition to the use of, for instance, the Anaphora aloud � but I did say that this is an open question and that the results of this practice in the Roman Liturgy have not been utterly splendid. Are we forbidden to learn from the bad experiences of others?

` Respect for the clergy and the faithful. Father David apparently assumes that he has only to say, for example, �This is not disrespectful of the people�s position.� or �the process was not elitist or gnostic� and those statements become true, because Father David has said them.
But Father David has also said that the people �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�; �Some people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be� �When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people� �Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response� � without, of course, inviting the people to take part in articulating those needs.

Doesn�t say much for Father David�s claimed respect for the clergy and the people, does it? Nor does it say much for the sort of education that he believes has been available to the clergy and the people. Sounds more like what used to be called �benevolent despotism�, perhaps crossed with an attitude articulated by two twentieth-century political leaders. Woodrow Wilson asserted that he and he alone could discern the common meaning of the common voice. Eamon de Valera said that �when I wish to know what the Irish people want, I look into my own heart.� Such people frighten me; the twentieth century had too many of them. Papal infallibility is problematic and requires careful explanation � but this sort of thing is simply ludicrous. If we are going to have monarchs, we should crown and anoint them, require coronation oaths, and deliver sermons instructing them as to their responsibilities before God and the people.

�Litanies�: what this is about I honestly don�t know, because Father David never explains what his problem is. Was he bitten by an ektene on the banks of the Tiber? A few years ago, someone assured me that he simply dislikes litanies intensely. Father David has denied this, but the evidence of what he writes deprives the denial of at least some credibility. If he seriously wants to be rid of the two small synaptes during the Enarxis, for example, there is nothing to stop him from publishing an article to explain why, in his view, these two synaptes ought not to be there. The same applies to the Aiteseis � if he wants to be rid of them, let him come forth courageously and give his reasons, which can then be discussed intelligently. Instead, he keeps asserting that I am requiring (?) the use of all the litanies in the 1941 Liturgicon � and never explains why that is in his view a bad idea. But until he explains himself, the fact is and will remain that these elements are indeed found in the 1941 Liturgicon and are not described as optional � please do not blame me for that; I was not even born at the time. But since Father David considers himself qualified to tell us that we should do things as he wants us to, because it will be good for us, I feel qualified to tell him to try using the full text consistently over a period of no less than thirty years, because it will be good for him. Turnabout is fair play. If, by the way, Father David cares to criticize my liturgical publications, he is free to do so.

Most bizarre of all, perhaps, is what appears to be Father David�s assertion that the Vatican II �Decree 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, presumably, Orientale Lumen �don�t count� because Father David thinks that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us and will continue to hate us no matter what we do � and he thinks this because, in his experience, �Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics� and �Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband�. He must have had some painful experiences. But they are not necessarily typical of all of Orthodoxy. Sitting at my desk, arthritis and all, I could easily pick up the phone and have pleasant conversations (one at a time) with several Orthodox friends, who show no signs of hating me or my Church. Indeed, I shall probably do just that this very evening. Bishop Kallistos has lectured for the seminary where Father David is on the faculty; if he finds Bishop Kallistos hateful, then Father David is in a minority of one.
It�s hard to understand Father David�s position in this, but I�m inclined to suspect that somewhere in it there lurks a desire � perhaps not fully acknowledged � to make the Greek-Catholic Church a sort of �third way�, a hybrid tertium quid that could never feel comfortable with Orthodoxy, even when communion is restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Why anyone would want to do that is something that I do not claim to know.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for this afternoon. To end as I began, I have not attempted to respond to everything Father David has written in this draft; time enough for that.

Serge Keleher

AAAAAAAAAACK!!

Pardon me Father Serge, but on another thread - I remember not which - I simply addressed you as Serge.

Begging your pardon, Father Serge

NEMO

Dear Nemo - my thanks to you. I consider it more courteous to refrain from asserting my own titles, but that's not an invitation to address me that way! So thank you again.

with every blessing,

SK

As promised, I was on the telephone with an Orthodox colleague in the American midwest earlier this evening - we spoke for a good hour and fifteen minutes (thank God for Internet telephone calls!). There was no difficulty or tension whatever, but plenty of amusing moments.

Serge Keleher

I honestly did not intend to respond to the latest response to my response, because this can - and probably will - go on ad infinitum. However, a friend - and I do have friends - told me that I have to respond to this because it distorts my ecumenical views so much. There is much in the latest response that does twist and distort my position, and much that is ridiculous - why, all of a sudden, call presbyteral prayers - a name recognized by anyone knowledgeable in the Liturgy field - episcopal prayers, except for misdirection. In my response, I haven�t even gotten to this subject yet. However, for the record, these are my observations on his concluding paragraph on ecumenism. His comments are in quotation marks, my observations are interspersed.

Fr. Serge begins:
�Most bizarre of all, perhaps, is what appears to be Father David�s assertion that the Vatican II �Decree 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, presumably, Orientale Lumen �don�t count� because Father David thinks that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us and will continue to hate us no matter what we do�

Words that are put into my mouth. I have never disavowed the Decree on the Eastern Churches, and on Ecumenism, the Codes of Canons and the Liturgical Instruction of 1996, nor did I say that Eastern Orthodoxy hates us - that some Eastern Orthodox hate us is obvious, that we are a problem in the dialogue is obvious to the point of painfulness. I never said that the documents �don�t count,� and I never said that dialogue shouldn�t be carried on - in fact, I have been an active member of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation in North America since 1983. Nor did I say that nothing we can do matters. I said we cannot form a bridge to Orthodoxy, because anyone involved in dialogue today has renounced �uniatism,� and the �bridge theory,� - I did say that if we have the maturity to attend well to our liturgical life for the benefit of our people�s spiritual life, this may help. Everything else does not represent my position and may be slanderous


�� and he thinks this because, in his experience, �Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics� and �Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband�. He must have had some painful experiences.�

I said, �dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics,� because it is. As one Orthodox priest told me, �We can only have union if the Uniates get off all the dialogues.� Before proceeding, does Fr. Serge think that I cannot distinguish between individual opinions and the general opinion of Orthodoxy? - even so, the opinion that Eastern Catholics have no role in dialogue is very common, and it makes dialogue difficult for Eastern Catholics - why else did Balamand have to mention this point explicitly. I said, �Nothing that we can do ... ,� but this is a common Orthodox opinion. It was stated (reputedly) at the Rhodes pre-Synod preparations, and was said by Nissiotis and by other Orthodox, both Greek and Russian. Yes, I have had some painful experiences - but I have continued the dialogue because I believe in the �dialogue of love.�


�But they are not necessarily typical of all of Orthodoxy. Sitting at my desk, arthritis and all, I could easily pick up the phone and have pleasant conversations (one at a time) with several Orthodox friends, who show no signs of hating me or my Church. �

Does Fr. Serge think I have no Orthodox friends that I cannot also phone? I have many Orthodox friends, but my friendship does not constitute official policy, nor does it automatically bring about reunion. In fact, I never said that the Orthodox �hate� us, that is Fr. Serge putting words into my mouth. I did say that on an official level they often don�t tolerate us, because that is true.
What is the point of misquoting me here?


�Indeed, I shall probably do just that this very evening. Bishop Kallistos has lectured for the seminary where Father David is on the faculty; if he finds Bishop Kallistos hateful, then Father David is in a minority of one. �

This is totally outrageous. Completely outrageous. It is a brazen attempt to drive a wedge between me and an Orthodox bishop that I highly respect as a true gentleman and Christian. I never said that Bishop Kallistos hates us - never! And one is not justified in self-righteously saying that this follows logically from my position, because it doesn�t. In no way and in no place do I say that all Orthodox hate us.


�It�s hard to understand Father David�s position in this, but I�m inclined to suspect that somewhere in it there lurks a desire � perhaps not fully acknowledged � to make the Greek-Catholic Church a sort of �third way�, a hybrid tertium quid that could never feel comfortable with Orthodoxy, even when communion is restored between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Why anyone would want to do that is something that I do not claim to know.�

He not only claims to know my mind, as if it were my mind from the words he puts into it, but then ridicules me for what he thinks that I think. And he can get away with it, not because any of it is true, but because some people want to believe it�s true. The Greek Catholic Church is not a �third way�: that is not my opinion, has never been my opinion, and never will be my opinion. We do have the dignity of a particular church and the ability to make decisions for our own spiritual welfare but we never do this in isolation or apart from the universal Church. His sentence is complete innuendo and manipulation of ideas, which shows why an objective conference on Liturgy as proposed on this Forum will be so impossible.

With hope in Christ,

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your continued posting here.

I think that you must consider that they way you present your case is very confusing and leads to people form conclusions that you might not hold. In your writings on this Forum (as well as in your response to Father Serge�s book) you have repeatedly made references to (some) Orthodox who dislike us. But you�ve never explained what their opinion of us - or even the issue of ecumenism � has to do with Liturgy. [Since you keep mentioning it is logical to conclude that you think there is some sort of link.]

Questions about what some (or many) Orthodox think about Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics or even matters of ecumenism are irrelevant to questions of Liturgy. We are not called to live the fullness of our liturgical tradition because it might get someone to like us or because we might or might not be a bridge to anywhere. We are called to live the fullness of our liturgical tradition in its correct form because it is the right thing to do. It is where we encounter Christ.

Admin

I bring it up because it seems to be your (and other's) principle that the Orthodox will respect us only if we say all the litanies and sing the antiphons in full, and that to do otherwise is anti-ecumenical and will put distance between them and us. That should be clear, and your observation is argumentative. In fact, I have said exactly what you say in your second paragraph, and I quote from the previous post, the Response to Fr. Keleher's book:

"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. .... 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 should be clear, even if we disagrre radically on how it should be carried out.

This seems to be "petras-baiting," just to rile me up.

Father David,

If we can pull together a conference in Chicago prior to the promulgation of the liturgy would you be willing to present the case for the new liturgy to that meeting? If we can have you and other commission members there all the better. If you and Father Serge can be their together to take us through this liturgy step by step what a blessing this would be. I've sent you a pm about this. Perhaps you have missed it. But we would really like to have whatever comes forth be a blessing to the entire Church and to assuage any fears people might have. We also would like the commission to hear the people before this is promulgated.

What do you say? If we paid for your travel expenses would you come. It's informal. We've asked for the bishop's blessing. We aren't trying to do anything behind anyone's back. From the reaction we've received in our Churches thus far such a presentation is vitally necessary if this is going to be a blessing and not a cause of frustration.

Can we count on you coming if the dates work out?

Carson Daniel Lauffer

Dear Father David, You posted:

"I bring it up because it seems to be your (and other's) principle that the Orthodox will respect us only if we say all the litanies and sing the antiphons in full, and that to do otherwise is anti-ecumenical and will put distance between them and us. That should be clear, and your observation is argumentative. In fact, I have said exactly what you say in your second paragraph, and I quote from the previous post, the Response to Fr. Keleher's book:"

Setting the possible thoughts of the Orthodox not in Communion with Rome aside,I ask:

What does God think of his Church when it deletes prayers from the Liturgy?

Do we have something better to do than fully partcipate in the Divine Liturgy?

Do those we pray for in (all of) the Litanies no longer need our prayers since they were compile by St. John Chrysostom and others?

What benefits are there to skipping/deleting/etc. Litanies and Antiphons?

Thank you, Father David, for your post.

I have never made the above point. The point I made was quite different.

Pope John Paul the Great challenged us on numerous occasions to faithfully witness Orthodoxy (as full as is possible within Roman communion). He called us to do this because it is the right thing to do. It is possible that such a witness might somehow contribute to reunion (perhaps by showing that it is really possible to be in communion with Rome and be faithful to Orthodoxy). But that would be a dividend of doing what is correct. We must do what is right (restore the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension) because it is right. Any such dividend (if it occurred at all) would only be a bonus. This is, however, an entirely different discussion.

What you write here has nothing to do with your claimed need to reform the Liturgy.

The spiritual needs and welfare of our people will be best met by embracing and praying our own liturgical tradition in its fullness. The recent Holy Fathers and all the Vatican documents keep telling us this. The few parishes that we have that are growing are those which strive to attempt to celebrate our official tradition.

I agree that we should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. I have been saying this all my life. The problem is that the proposed changes are not faithful to the Ruthenian recension. They are nothing more than picking and choosing customs from long ago. Those proposing the changes have yet to begin to offer a real case supporting any of the changes.

What kind of case do I wish to see from those proposing the changes? I expect a scholarly book like Father Keleher�s, except from your perspective. I expect it to have hundreds of supporting references from the early Church fathers down to Benedict XVI (solid liturgical theology) demonstrating beyond a doubt that the official Ruthenian recension is so flawed that it must be changed (unilaterally by us apart from all the Churches � Catholic and Orthodox � which make up the recension). I expect a believable discussion on why the principles given in Liturgicam Authenticam are wrong. I expect a solid discourse demonstrating how the Latin Church now has benefited from praying the anaphora aloud for 30+ years - including everything that such a practice is hoped to bring to the Byzantine Church. I expect it to include a convincing argument demonstrating why we can�t wait for such things to evolve across Orthodoxy (and us with them) over the coming generations. If there is a claim that the Orthodox are already doing this (which you have made repeatedly) I want to see a listing of the Orthodox jurisdictions that have mandated these changes.

I have probably read everything you have written on this topic (which has been published in our papers). But I do understand the difference between a newspaper column and a scholarly presentation. What you have written (even here) has only shown us that you believe strongly that we should change the Liturgy. You have not offered any evidence to support your claims.


There are always some such people in these internet discussions. What you see in my posts is probably the frustration of never getting any believable justifications for the proposed revisions.

In my own studies I see everything from the Church fathers to Benedict XVI telling us to live our official Ruthenian recension so that it may form us and save us. I see the need for unity and continued commonality with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

Everything I read (including what you have written thus far) convinces me more and more that the proposed changes are wrong for our Church.

Father David,

What Father Serge wrote about the relationship between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox was justified by your original diatribe. Please quit whining and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of �petras-baiting.�

Why are you are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the 1941 book from becoming the standard for our church.

JD

Father David,

I said before that I have been an admirer of your writings for years. But your posts here have left me, well perplexed. Your credentials as both a scholar and a pastor of souls are highly regarded. Your work to ensure a fuller experience of the Byzantine tradition in our parishes is commendable. I don't know of anyone who has ever spoken ill of you personally.

And yet, time and again you seem to read into posts criticisms of a personal nature that others do not see. Father Serge's critique of the commission's work is both thorough and deserving of a response from the commission. It is objective and scholarly. As you know, in the world of scholarship, debate is common fare. (The debate between then Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper is an interesting and very high profile example.)

In my own consulting with leaders at all levels of corporations both nationally and internationally over the years, I have encountered individuals that, when faced with a conflict in the arena of ideas, resort to a defensive posture and ascribe a personal attack where none exists. This behavior is designed to effectively shame those who disagree into silence. Such behavior is unbecoming a leader in any role, but most especially one who bears the weight of pastoral responsibility with a scope that touches the whole of the Metropolia.

As a "spiritual son" who would never wish to see the nakedness of his father exposed for all to see, I beg you sincerely to consider the nature of your calumnious accusations against others here on this forum. Prior to your posts, any weakness exposed on your part has been one of scholarship, not of character. If you are willing to stay engaged on the issues broached by Father Serge and others on this forum, I have no doubt that you will gain and retain the respect and appreciation of all here. As Father Serge has mentioned, you of all the members of the commission have braved the waters of the laos in a public forum. We need you to draw upon your fatherly courage and remain with us, engaging us in the realm of ideas.

As the Scriptures teach us, "Come let us reason together..."

Many years,

Gordo