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

The questions are raised:

"So, we are left with two questions: Do all of the priests in the Metropolia have Father Serge's book or not? If they do, how do with thank the anonymous benefactor?

"If every priest has one and if every priest has a copy of the proposed translation it should be easy to have a conference with educated laity provided that: 1. Every priest makes both the new translation and Father's book available to the laity; and 2. Every Church comes with representatives of that Church."

The benefactor reports that those who wish to express gratitude may send letters of thanks to Stauropegion Press - those who wish to express gratitude more tangibly may send checks to Stauropegion Press - and those who wish to express great gratitude may send orders to Stauropegion Press! Seems fair to me.

At the risk of tooting my own horn (who? me?) I would strongly suggest that a call to conference include a reading list (including my book - don't die of shock) and also a registration form asking, for example, how competent the conferee is in Church-Slavonic, and even Greek. The point is not to keep anybody away, but to let the presentors have an idea of the needs of the conferees. There would be no point in quoting lots of things in Greek, for instance, if almost no one could understand it. I would love to give a long speech in Irish, but I fear that the audience for such a speech, while enthusiastic, might be of rather low numbers!

Fr Serge

This is very disturbing Father. Apparently these books have been "out" in clergy hands for quite a while. Only some clergy received books. Others I guess will have to buy their way into the club.

This is not settling well with me and I am going to copy this entire thread when I finish sending this so I have so proof that at least one person here has registered some amazement at the draconian silliness that is passing for "enlightenment" around here lately.

Who do we trust now, Father Keleher?

ELi

I publicly withdraw my vote of mistrust for the moment, with an apology, but there has already been damage done among the clergy, by the selective distribution of this book. There are more than enough "secrets" in this Metropolia at the moment.

I am very sorry that one more had to be added to the list.

Eli

This morning I received an e-mail from the Stauropegion Press. Here it is, in toto:

Dear Father Archimandrite Serge,

You may wish to report that you have heard from "Stauropegion Press".

So far a small number of books (8) have been returned by the post office
(because of faulty or incorrect addresses).

Also, the press worked from a list of parishes, and attempted to remove
parishes (2nd and 3rd parishes) where one priest served more than one
parish, so that each priest only received one book. But accidental
errors may have been made in this process. There was no other attempt
to "select" addresses, other than to make an economy by avoiding sending
priests who serve 3 parishes, 3 copies.

Anyone who did not receive a book, and who would like one, should
contact "Stauropegion Press".

Stauropegion Press
PO Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Sincerely,

The Stauropegion Press


It is no fault of the Stauropegion Press that obtaining the address list of the clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia proved to be a difficult proposition. Time was when that list was published annually, but the mania for secrecy seems even to apply to something as run-of-the-mill as that.

Fr Serge Keleher

One then suspects that several priests have the book but have either not opened the package or have put the book on the shelf and forgotten that they have it. I've done both of those over the years.

It's also true that priests, like everyone else, aren't obligated to reveal everything they know.

CDL

Define accuracy.

The criteria, given to us by the universal Church in fact, for defining "accuracy" will lead us not into perfection, but will deliver us from banality and heterodoxy.

Just a small suggestion. Don't use the world as the criteria for translating liturgy. People actually can learn. Do learn.

Orthodoxy, however grumpy and prickly, is full of little people willing and eager to learn all kinds of new and alien things. I know this because I walk among them regularly. How do you suppose that happens? Did any of the commission ever think of such a thing when deciding when to consult the world and the flesh for her best choice of words and phrases?

You know Father David, there are few people who call a priest or bishop Master, or take the hem of their robe, or kiss their right hand who don't know that they are speaking to their Lord and Master, Heavenly King who is approaching them through their priest and their bishop?

Every time Despota is used in liturgy when priest and bishop act in the person of the Christ, we speak Lord, Master to the King, not to the man behind the curtain!!

And if people do not know that, Father David, then they need to be taught, but they will not be convinced if the naming flip-flops back and forth at your whim or the whim of some committee.

The role of the priest and bishop in the person of Christ in the liturgy, as in any sacramental rite and ritual, does not fade in and out at the whim of a committee.

There are a few other things in your long note but I think I'll address them one at a time so that the messages don't blur.

Eli

Dear Father David,

This one would be funny if it weren't so sad to think that people's minds get so inwardly focused that they cannot see outside themselves much less the room in which they are working.

Most of the people of this world, Father, live in villages or in cities, they may then align themselves with any number of comminities forged in work, school, home, during recreation and in church.

But when you pray for people, as they are, where they are, they are in cities, hamlets, burgs, villages, boroughs, countrysides, etc.

Even the Democrats know that it takes a village, not a community, to raise a child.

The sense of that petition is to hit people where they live, not in how they associate.

If you wish to change the sense of that petition entirely, be my guest, but don't tell me it is the same thing only more "inclusive" unless you are testing my sense of humor.

Eli

I learned today that Fr. Kelleher is outside the Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) Metropolia of Pittsburgh, being a part of the UGCC instead. Ironically, it took quite a few searches on the net for me to find that out. Since I don't read everything on the Forum, I figure he must have said that somewhere, and I just missed it.

Dear Jim,
Try reading the first chapter of my book - scholarship knows no boundaries.

Fr. Serge

But as you yourself pointed out, Fr. Serge, knowledge of the liturgical situation in the Archeparchy - crucial for evaluating a pastoral adaptation - does have some boundaries.

On the other hand, John Vernosky apparently does think that the existing-yet-pending texts and chant are not conducive to good practice pastorally, and he appears to agree with many of Father Keleher's assessments.

So there apparently tends to be some overlapping of liturgical and pastoral substance regardless of the larger jurisdictional issues that might occur between the Ruthenians and the Ukranians.

Personally I would love to know where impetus for the great pressing and immediate need for a revision of the revision of the revision actually came from. I don't see it springing up from the laity or the clergy. Clearly not. We've been given a sort of 'everyone agreed that...' kind of response, but that is not yet particularly revealing.

Eli

I think that the pastoral component of a "pastoral adaptation" is of central importance. From what I gather, this component is not part of Fr. Serge's analysis. (He calls for this information after the fact of publication/dissemination, and stipulates that the information is hard to come by in his location.) If I gather correctly, this deficiency, while not vititating the scholarship of his academic contribution, nevertheless represents a significant shortcoming of his criticism.

And not just Father's, but the criticism coming from many others, here.

I could put this a different way: What is the anticipated impact on this change or that, this word choice or that, this restoration, or that abbreviation, on the salvation of souls in Nanty Glo, South Fork, Conemaugh, Barnesboro, Windber etc. - given the nature of the liturgical practice and parish life today. Few if any of us posting here can answer this question.

It is likely that those who see abbreviation where others see restoration are informed by very different local practices? Overall the question of pastoral adaptation is a very difficult one. The Administrator has expressed his opinions on the matter - with conviction. And, by the very nature of the promulgation - whatever the final text and rubrics, whatever is mandated, recommended, or left open - the Bishops will express their opinion and their judgment.

Who really can answer these critcial questions? The persons in the best position to know, parish by parish are the pastors, and the ones in the best position to know the overall situation are the Bishops and their co-workers (and Lemko Rusyn, who's been to most of them). God gave us shepherds to care for His flocks. How well have they done this job? Have they surveyed the situation? (Yes.) Finally, have they reached the best conclusions? Tough call - which I am glad I am not called on to make. Lots of input is a great idea. Second guessing? Undercutting? Not so great.

Dear djs,

I think "pastoral adaptation" is just another word for "change". Change in the recension is what I oppose, whatever you call it, or whatever motivation you ascribe to it.

It is all revisionism under another name.

The Liturgy should change us. We don't need to change the Liturgy (even under the mistaken disguise of "pastoral sensitivity").

Leave the Liturgy in tact, whole, unabbreviated, unchanged, without exclusive (so-called-inclusive) language or any other agenda.

You call it "pastoral adaptation" I call it "unnecesary change".

But nice try.

Nick

Nick, I will respond to this one, with apolgies to Eli. I checked posts here after someone else said that the critics of the new liturgy have been called stupid. Ready to make an apology if I had slipped up and acted improperly. Within the limits of the the search utility here, I have found that the charge is untrue. It is not a matter of stupidity to have less facts than someone else, that's just life - different folks have different areas of knowledge.

So you tell me: if we have unabbreviated (2.5 - 3 hour) liturgies (a big change) what would happen in Conemaugh?

You and I see eye to eye on the pastoral issue all the way down to the question of whether or not the bishops have "surveyed the situation."

Now I have been to a few parish visitation liturgies and they are nothing like everyday Sunday. Sometimes every day Sundays are much better

But I am not nearly as content as you are that the bishops are any more "attuned" to the parishes and their clergy and their individual idiosyncracies spread out over a liturgical year than Father Keleher is, or John Vernosky.

What I have seen so far of the commission's "choices" and how they were made do not encourage me to "trust" the commission.

Now I am not a professional linguist, nor am I a liturgist, though I have been a paid translator because of my sensitivity to the poetry of language, the nuances of meanings, and the capacities of the English language to do astonishingly beautiful and accurate things simultaneously if you treat her properly, so I don't run entirely in the dark here, and I have a darn good ear for the times when heaven ideed comes down and meets us half way. Perhaps the chanceries and their staff might try doing more of that too.

Eli