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

Much of the problem has to do with English words.
Therefore, I objected to the use of the word �concede� because the conclusion would be that we should then do what Fr. Serge advocates. In the points listed, I allow that Fr. Serge may be right, but that does not mean that other opinion were therefore necessarily wrong and that we should change them. Also, in regard to some suggestions made in other places, I defend what I sincerely believe needs defense.
I apologize if my opinion about variation in the Old Believers texts was misunderstood. I have not studied Old Believer texts in any detail, but what I meant was that there are many variations - differences - between the textus receptus and Old Believer texts.
I agree that ad hominem arguments should not prevail and that we should discuss the substance, but the problem is that in so many cases a �spin� is put on my words that was not there, and I have been accused likewise of not presenting reasons for some of my points, while the reasons have been clearly there.
There is one encouraging sign. In regard to my discussion of the roles of the various participants - bishop/presbyter - deacon - people - which I admit is not exhaustive but was only to put into relief the bishop/presbyter�s role of fulfilling the command of our Lord, Fr. Serge says, �Father David�s position thus described certainly offers food for thought.� If it does move many to think about it, then this whole forum discussion will have been well worth the time and effort.

Father David

I think that hits the nail on the head why "men" shouldn't be taken out of the Creed. A spin is put on the word that was not there.

Father David�s post of 29 July is not easy to grasp.

Father writes that he objected to my claim that he had conceded this or that specific point, because this would imply that my suggestion should be adopted in place of whatever word or phrase I was criticizing. But that, surely, is the point of the exercise � neither Father David nor I are discussing these matters purely for the sake of intellectual stimulation. In an earlier post he has written that a new �final draft� is in the works (which seems strange, since two eparchies are requiring the clergy to submit bulk orders for the books); one does assume that in this new final draft there will be further changes. Father David writes: �I allow that Fr. Serge may be right, but that does not mean that other opinion[s] were therefore necessarily wrong and that we should change them.� On some points, such relativism is admissible, but there are also points on which such an approach is surely inadmissible, where the choice of words does make a significant difference � the use of the word �orthodox� is an obvious case in point.

Father David writes that �Also, in regard to some suggestions made in other places, I defend what I sincerely believe needs defense.� No doubt; only a very unusual person writes to defend something which he sincerely believes does not need defence! But most people can easily think of any number of phenomena which all too clearly are in need of defence but which nevertheless we do not propose to defend. I am morally certain that there are many propositions which Father David would not bestir himself to defend; in most cases (although obviously not in all cases) he and I might even agree on specific matters.

On 11 July Father David wrote: ��there are many variant old practices and many variations in the Old Ritualist Liturgicons. We need some sort of criteria on how to apply them to present practice�.


Then on 30 July Father David writes: �I apologize if my opinion about variation in the Old Believers texts was misunderstood. I have not studied Old Believer texts in any detail, but what I meant was that there are many variations - differences - between the textus receptus and Old Believer texts.� This has me puzzled, for two principal reasons:

1) The information �that there are many variations - differences - between the textus receptus and Old Believer texts� does not come as news; this was the cause of the schism between the Russian Old Orthodox Church and the State Church which broke out more than 350 years ago and this cause has not changed. The textus receptus of Patriarch Nikon is nothing more than a wooden Church-Slavonic translation of the 1602 Greek text of Venice, as Paul Meyendorff�s book Russia, Ritual, and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon In the 17th Century , St. Vladimir�s Seminary Press, 1991, has demonstrated quite ably. The Nikonian text, and the 1602 Greek text on which it was based, can properly be called the textus receptus, because indisputably this was eventually �received� by the large majority � in this it is comparable to the King James Bible, for example. But that is no guarantee of accuracy.

2) The Old Rite text is by definition pre-Nikonian , in other words, older than the text published by Nikon and today used in most of the Byzantine-Slavonic Churches. Being older, it witnesses to Greek texts (which would have been in manuscript form) which themselves originated quite some time before 1602. That in itself is enough to make the Old Rite texts significant.

Father David tells us that he has not studied the Old Rite texts � which is unfortunate and surprising, since a comparison between the Old Rite texts and the Ruthenian texts of the early seventeenth century shows enough important similarities to enable us to conclude that they have a good deal in common (which is not, in itself, surprising). Since the Old-Ritualists were and are utterly careful to maintain their texts accurately these texts witness to a tradition indisputably Byzantine-Slavonic, certainly non-Nikonian and with little or no influence from the Latins.

Father David, quite reasonably, proposes that �We need some sort of criteria on how to apply� the Old Ritualist texts. This is well worth considering. Attempting to turn the present Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia into a completely Old-Ritualist Church would not have much likelihood of success, pleasant though some of us might find it.

For a first criterion, it would be helpful to remember that there are some points which the Old-Ritualists refused to accept, and rightly so, but which are purely linguistic matters and simply do not affect translations into English. The simplest example is the concluding phrase so often used ��i vo v�iki v�ikom�. This is a dative possessive, not uncommon in many languages and acceptable in Church-Slavonic, but there is no practical way to arrange an English translation which would distinguish between v�iki v�ikom and v�iki v�ikov � so we may refrain from worrying about it when preparing English translations and settle for �unto ages of ages�, even though �of ages� is an English equivalent of a genitive possessive, not a dative possessive. It is not difficult to find other such examples.

Then there are texts which are, in general, flexible � the Ektene (after the Gospel) is one of the most flexible elements of the Service-Book, so while there is nothing wrong with the version offered by the Old Rite, there is nothing necessarily wrong with other versions either.

But consider two other sorts of cases: we can easily substantiate from the Old Rite text that some elements which were removed from the 1941 �Ruthenian Recension� are not Latin intrusions, indeed they are not intrusions at all, so one might well ask why they should not be restored to use? Here the question of �is the game worth the candle?� will arise; one does not want to disturb people without good reason � but there are some such elements whose restoration would be unlikely to disturb anyone at all, once it is established that it is not being restored by whim or fancy, but because an authentic source substantiates it.

Then it is possible to read the Old Rite texts together with other texts, as I did in connection with the passage which started this aspect of the discussion; when a text of such antiquity indicates that reading (a) should be preferred to reading (b), that at least gives some weight to the argument for reading (a) � especially since it is wildly unlikely that anyone in pre-Nikonian Muscovy concocted these texts because he anticipated a controversy which did not begin until the close of the nineteenth century. However, again with reference to that specific case, as my book points out there are other quite early sources which support the contrary reading so eventually it comes down, as translation must, to making a decision as to which reading one will use � all this is yet another reason why the original languages and texts can never lose their value, and why we need a serious, ongoing project to make many more facsimile editions available.

Another intriguing aspect of the Old Rite books � the �Recension� (there�s that word again!) of Church-Slavonic which these texts use is often clearer than the Nikonian and Nikonian-based editions. Part of the explanation is simply that Nikon�s translators produced an overly literal translation of the Greek, but more of it is that the Church-Slavonic language was allowed to develop, as languages are wont to do � but this development virtually stopped with Nikon.

Father David and I may well disagree on the criteria for how to apply the Old Rite texts, but we should be able to agree that these texts are of serious importance and may not be simply ignored. As I wrote in my recent book which has stimulated this discussion:

�The Old-Ritualist service books (which is to say the Muscovite service books from before the Nikonian reform) are being reprinted; several are already available. They are not expensive to purchase. The content of these books is of major importance for the understanding of the Byzantine liturgical corpus � especially, but not exclusively, the Byzantine-Slavonic liturgical corpus.� (SK, The Draft Translation: a Response � Stauropegion Press 2006, p. 276). I meant, of course, that that these and other source materials should be taken seriously here and now, not in some nebulous and distant future, and that it would be no more than sensible to put the publication of a translation on hold until these texts can be reviewed for that purpose.

Father David asserts that: �I have been accused likewise of not presenting reasons for some of my points, while the reasons have been clearly there.� It is always possible that the underlying reasons for this or that point are clear to the person making the point, but not to the person reading it. A request for clarification of the basis of some point is not a personal attack (if, for instance, anyone wants to ask me to substantiate my own point on the significance of the Old Rite service-books, I shall do so without rancour).

Father David writes that he is pleased that in a previous posting on this thread �Father David�s position thus described certainly offers food for thought.� So I did � and in that same posting I offered some thoughts on the subject, which Father David ignores.

Rather than explore that further at the immediate moment, I prefer to repeat a question which various people have posed several times, and, yet again, to request an answer:

�Why, then, is Father David implacably opposed to the idea that the Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy should be used in liturgical practice?�

If Father David has been misunderstood and he is in fact not opposed to the use of the complete Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy, but is only proposing a possible alternative, we may rejoice together and celebrate that form of the Divine Liturgy together. If, on the other hand, he is, as I and others have understood, opposed to the present-day use of the Divine Liturgy as it was published in 1941 (prescinding, of course, from the question of what language or languages one cares to use), then surely it is not beside the mark to ask the motives of this opposition.

Serge Keleher

The problem is not that people have put a �spin� on Father David�s words. The problem is that Father David�s reasons have not amounted to anything convincing.

Father Keleher has raised a number of very good points. Father David has ignored most of them. Our much esteemed Administrator has provided us with a lot of evidence from official Vatican documents telling us how to go about all of this. Father David has not responded to those arguments at all except to dismiss the Vatican documents as irrelevant to us.

Father David is certainly very capable of giving a serious, scholarly defense of the commission�s work. Maybe he is too emotionally attached to this project to see that the arguments he has presented are not very good? Maybe he can try again?


This is perhaps the most important question of this whole discussion.

Father David, please answer this question.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Gory forever!

Please keep this topic dedicated solely to discussion of Father Serge's book (provided you have the chance to read it). I have deleted the last three posts due to non-compliance of this request.

Thank you.

In Christ,

Michael B (moderator)

Dear forum administrator, moderators, participants, and lurkers:

I have lots of questions now. I am reading Father Keleher�s monumental work about the revised divine liturgy and found Chapter 2 (�The Controversy and Its Historical Setting�) fascinating and disturbing at the same time. Nothing personal against the author; I think he really put together a wonderful survey to educated those who are clueless about these things. I found it fascinating because it shows how dynamic and people-active the church is. I found it disturbing because it also shows how sad church politics can be.

I don�t come here to tangle with politics and the personal sins of church people, shepherds or sheep. I come with a lot of questions that are a result of my reading of Father Keleher�s tome.

The Questions.

1. p.16f �the invention of the printing press did much to advance the idea of �uniformity� in liturgy�
- Was this a good thing? I read much on how the Catholic Church encompasses diversity in its universal nature, but found it odd that the idea of uniformity was advanced. Was it a practical matter?

2. p.17 �By the second half of the nineteenth century a dispute was already in full swing between those who wanted a liturgical practice as close as possible to the liturgical practice of Eastern Orthodoxy, and those who wanted a liturgical practice as different as possible from that of Eastern Orthodoxy�
- Why? Aren�t Byzantine Catholics from the same �stock� of Christianity? What would lead those to want to be different from their nature?

3. p.18 �The religious orders became involved: the Studites from the beginning were supportive of Byzantine liturgical authenticity. The Basilians opposed the movement for liturgical repristination. The Redemptorists were in a different position ��
- How can religious orders be so opposed to one another? Something more than repristination or the need thereof was at stake here. Are there any religious orders in the Byzantine Catholic church that is still authentic to their Byzantine traditions? I heard of Franciscan Byzantines; how can that be? This is confusing. Do Orthodox have such branches of religious orders in their churches?

4. p.18 �in the minds of some people the liturgical dispute became linked with secular politics�
- This really stretches my imagination. How can THAT be?

5. p.19 �The Bishops of Mukachiv-Uzhorod, Presov, Krizevsi, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Winnipeg � associated themselves with the petition to Rome, asking the Holy See to produce this �typical� set of liturgical books for them�
- ok. All these communities are Catholic and refer the dispute to Rome (I would imagine the Pope would be involved?) Yet in reading this history I found how Rome did produce a typical set of books, but those who petitioned didn�t like what Rome came up with. Has any church produced a set of books for worship that is better than what Rome came up with? How does this tie in with today�s dispute over the revised divine liturgy?

6. p.19 �Rome�s decision to forbid the ordination of married men to major orders� and �Bishop Basil (Takach) insisted on enforcing Rome�s imposition of celibacy�
- WOW! I can see how this was �fire in the hole� for Byzantine Catholics at the time. Why would Rome go one way on liturgical matters but the other way on marriage and ordination matters?

7. p.24 �that restoring a typical book for the Divine Liturgy would also require a book of rubrics�
- A worship text and a rubric text seem to be two entirely different matters. Are these the details where the proverbial �Devil� lies? Why would rubrics change over time and not the text? What were the priests doing that Cardinal Tisserant noted?

8. p.25 �the Oriental Congregation responded � granting � ten of the requested dispensations � reminding Bishop Daniel that in the Liturgy offered in the seminary and in houses of paramonastic formation the dispensation should not be used�
- Why would seminarians � future clergy � be obliged but not in the parishes? How did a seminarian go through years of training without dispensations (whatever they were) and then go out into the sheep and worship with them? This would be confusing is not counterproductive.

9. p.26 �the restored Divine Liturgy gradually began to come into use to some extent�
- This sounded like an improvement, but unfortunately, it was short lived. Is this what the Administrator and others are referring to when they advocate implementing the �Ruthenian recession?� Is it basically putting into practice what Rome published after Byzantine Catholic bishops asked for it? How was this restored Divine Liturgy different or similar to the Revised Divine Liturgy that is being disputed today?

10. p.27 �there were some implacable opponents of the liturgical restoration�
- Why would Catholics oppose Rome in such matters?

11. p.28 �Bishop Elko � was obdurately opposed to the �Ruthenian Recension� as the Holy See had presented it and would not accept the liturgical books published by the Holy See�
- This is where I really get confused. Rome�s books are not being implemented, but Rome hires an anti-Rome as bishop. Did I miss something here? He seemed to clean house (priests and seminarians) of those who wanted Rome�s version of the liturgical books. This is crazy.

12. p.30 �Bishop Elko had the mimeographed books recalled and the pages with the correspondence were removed before the books were returned to their owners. Fortunately, a few copies escaped the bowdlerizing�
- This seemed quite Draconian in method. But leads me to question (and forgive me if this is considered lack of charity) but if the previous bishop was as Draconian in reversing the implementation of mandatory celibacy, do you think the Byzantine Catholic Church would have had so many problems?

13. p.32 �Bishop Kocisko shared Bishop Elko�s aversion to the Ruthenian Recension and the Ordo Celebrationis�
- I find it strange that Rome keeps picking such church leaders. Not trying to be political here, but it seems that Rome was sending out mixed signals. What is your take on this?

14. p.32-33 �Bishop Elko and Bishop Kocisko made it crystal clear to the clergy of their respective eparchies that while the �texts� of this translation were to be used, more or less, the clergy were not permitted to follow the �rubrics� and order of service of this new edition� and �the difficulty and the need for liturgical restoration lay primarily in the rubrics�
- Help me out. Maybe this is what they mean by �Byzantine� methods? What was the reason for such an �occult reservation�? What exactly were they afraid of? Please, someone tell me what those �occult reservations� were? Are they still present in the Byzantine Catholic Church?

15. p.37 �Bishop Emil of Parma issued a formal letter officially promulgating the �Ordo Celebationis�, mandating the use of the 1965 English translation of the 1941 Roman edition of the Divine Liturgy according to the Ruthenian Recension�
- It took some time but it seemed like the �Parma Spring� finally did what was supposed to have been done since the 1940s, 25 years ago!

16. p.37-38 �Archbishop Kocisko and probably Bishop Dudick were �concerned� about this whole pattern and � made it clear to Bishop Emil that one eparchy was not to be �out of step� with the other two�
- This is sad. Bishop Emil was only trying to do what Rome published. In reading this I question whether the other two bishops were out of step with Rome? Sorry for the political observation, but I couldn�t help question what I read. It seems that church politics is part and parcel of the whole debate on restoring the Ruthenian Recension or revising the liturgy.

17. p.39-40 �When the Oriental Congregation published � the �Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescription of the Code of Canon of the Eastern Churches� it became necessary to prepare and publish a new translation of the �Ordo Celebrationis� with the liturgical texts in English.�
- Once again, instructions are given. Were they applied? What were they?

18. p.40 �There are relatively few parishes anywhere in the Pittsburgh Metropolitinate where the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy as it appears in the 1941 Church Slavonic edition published in Rome and the 1965 English translation published in Pittsburgh, and as regulated by the �Ordo Celebrationis�, is the usual form of service�
- Goodness gracious! Why? Does the Revised Divine Liturgy (RDL) come close?

19. p.40 �So the first and indispensable step in any thought of modifying the Divine Liturgy as restored in 1941 and regulated by the �Ordo Celebrationis� is to begin celebrating according to those books�
- I will have to keep reading Father Keleher�s book to find out, but can anyone offer their own commentary? Are these taught in the seminary?

20. p.41 �The majority of the faithful of the parishes of the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate have probably �never� had an opportunity to attend the Divine Liturgy served in accordance with the official service books.
- It would be a mistake, wouldn�t it, to produce �another caricature of the Byzantine Liturgy� if no one is familiar where they should have been in the first place. Let me offer an example to see if this corresponds with the arguments being made here on these forums against the new revised Divine Liturgy. My friend works in a company that has a lot of old documents that still get used at times for different jobs. Recently, a merger with another company occurred where paper processing is done different. Now, the new method for �updating� older documents is by making a copy of the original and then marking it up and making changes. However, the original is never updated; only they copy. This problem becomes greater when others who don�t refer back to the original keep updating the copy. Then modified copies of copies are produced depending on the job and the manager�s taste in processing paperwork. No one thinks to actually go back to the original document(s). There is no history or paper trail of how later jobs got where they did. A new type of confusion reigns and information is lost. Is this the same in the debate with the new Revised Divine Liturgy? Awhile back I posted my concerns about inclusive language and how the Beatitudes were changed to read �children� of God rather than the original �sons� of God. �Sons� has a deeper meaning and it is the only word in all the ancient manuscripts for this Beatitude verse. Yet, the original meaning is lost.

21. p.42 �Various reasons are given for this opposition � the real roots go much deeper. The real issue is not ritual practice at all�
- But why were the rubrics always the thing that they clergy were instructed to ignore?

21. p.42 �At issue were not mere differences of rubric, but symbolic affirmations of the conviction� of �Catholic�
- Help me here again. Rome published a set of books for the Byzantine Catholics. They WERE Catholic weren�t they? I mean, they were published by Rome, not by Anglicans, the Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus. This notion or conviction of being �Catholic� by NOT acting like (Byzantine) Catholics is a philosophical contradiction. If clergy were being instructed NOT to act (rubrics?) like Byzantine Catholics by those who were Byzantine CATHOLIC shepherds, and these CATHOLIC shepherds were not listening to Rome (which is CATHOLIC all out!) then �. then � oh, I give up. This is all making my head spin.

22. p.42 �Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation to a life of discipline, renewal, and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion�
- What is THIS restored religious practice? What was �stagnate� back then?

23. p.42 �For this group, the adoption of certain Latin � they would say �Catholic� � devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity�
- Really? How is that so? If the Byzantine Catholic church didn�t have these before the schism (of 1054?) then how can anyone say by adopting Latin devotions and liturgical uses is a restoration?

24. p.42 �Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a �latinization of the heart� resulting form a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church�
- Brilliant observation! Is this the real issue on the debate regarding the Revised Divine Liturgy?

25. p.43 �The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See � and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey�
- This can be a problem. It is difficult today � when information is so readily available and our culture is so inclined to skepticism � for anyone to consider a life time of service in the church is most of the battles they will be waging will be internal ones not related to the Gospel and Evangelism. A situation like this would be considered an unwelcoming gauntlet of misplaced philosophical identity at the expense of doing God�s will; a philosophical school rather than a Gospel-oriented mission to build up the body of Christ.

26. p.43 �What is needed is � a clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation�
- Is this being done? What about the enforcement on celibacy? I read how mandatory celibacy has not been totally relinquished (bishops still have to get permission from Rome) and THIS brings up a point of mine: When it comes to clergy life (marriage), permission will be sought after from Rome to ordain a man. This rule comes from Rome and is still followed even though a married clergy is NOT a tradition of Eastern Christians (except for monks and bishops as I was told), but � BUT when the Ruthenian Recension is published by Rome, it is ignored. This sounds like a cafeteria where one decides what will be on the tray and what will not. Ok. I don�t want to be picky or considered rude, but the author does mention what he considers the problem. I won�t quote this one. But Edward Demming had something to say about this.

27. p.44 �there are two main reasons behind this deep-rooted reluctance to welcome the clear and unambiguous policy of Rome in its program of liturgical restoration of the Eastern traditions: [1] its opponents consider the restoration a pointless archaism; and [2] they are convinced in their hearts that some of the practice proposed are not really �Catholic,� and hence not �right.�
- Ok then. Sounds like an uphill battle.

Thank you,
Eddie Hashinsky

PS: The study I quote from has a "1" in it. Is there a Volume 2?

EdHash--I think you've spotted the problems nicely. I enjoyed your comments. How much is politics? Good question. It would be very naive to think politics is not involved in any way. There is plenty of politics in the Vatican. Even the Pope does not have complete control of things in the Curia. Read about the Vatican bank scandal in the 80's and your head will really be spinning. Embezzlement, murder, the mafia, clandestine funneling of money to underground NATO armies fighting communism, clandestine funneling of money to communist organizations (yup, people sending money to both sides) a fraternity that included the mafia, Cardinals, politicians including more than one Prime Minister not to mention other government officials (the head of the Italian version of the FBI and Military Intelligence) and much, much more. If you read about it in a novel by Tom Clancy you wouldn't believe it --too far fetched. But absolutely true.

I hate to be cynical, but when one reads about how much politics has played in the past, the recent past, one has to wonder if it is not happening right here and now with something such as the RDL.

Tim

My word. I had no idea that my little book was either monumental or a tome. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Now, to attempt to address Ed's questions:


That the invention of the printing press resulted in advancing the idea of "uniformity" in the liturgy is simply a fact of history; I attributed no value, positive or negative, to that fact. The Catholic Church was by no means the only religious body to be affected by it.


A reasonable question, certainly. Those who wanted something as different as possible from Eastern Orthodoxy regarded Eastern Orthodoxy as a threat, and an inferior form of Christianity. They believed that Roman Catholicism was "better" and that the proper way to improve their own Church was to copy the Roman Catholics as slavishly as possible. For a much more thorough analysis, cf. Fr Cyril Korolevsky's classic study Uniatism.


This is by no means the only example of religious orders opposing one another - but I'm not about to provide a list! By far the most authentic monastic community anywhere among the Greek-Catholics are the Studites. Franciscan Byzantines came about, to the best of my knowledge, shortly after World War II.


It's amazing what secular politicians can decide to stick their noses into! It was not foolish of Emperor Franz Joseph to say that the most important part of his job description was protecting his peole from the politicians!


I suppose that depends on your criteria for deciding what is better than what! My interpretation of the recent problem is that this simply more of the same - the Pittsburgh Metropolia will do anything rather than accept the official service-books.


Again, a reasonable question. I suppose the answer is that the Latin bishops in the USA at the time were unlikely to care - or even notice - how the Ruthenians served, but were prepared to become very angry and pound desks in Rome on the issue of married Greek-Catholic priests in the USA.


A complete answer to that question would require a great deal of time and would win me few friends! The usual service book includes both text and rubrics, but the rubrics change more readily. both by way of organic growth and by way of deliberate modification (in this or that direction).


Seminarians should be formed in accordance with the best, the most ideal - and in this instance the dispensations were temporary, so one could prudently foresee that the need for these dispensations would diminish as time went on and the future priests would be called upon for "the whole nine yards", so to speak.


Essentially yes - but please forgive me if I suggest that spelling errors can cause serious confusion: "Ruthenian Recession" sounds like an economic crisis in Uzhhorod. If you want to see the differences, that's easily accomplished: compare the 1965 translation (the "red book", as it's often called) with the recent "revised" edition.


For that, one wants a specialist in abnormal religious psychology.


Sorry, but I can't discern a question in there for me to answer! Your description of Bishop Nicholas's behavior is accurate.


By "the previous Bishop" are you referring to Bishop Daniel or Bishop Basil?


Popular mythology to the contrary, "Rome" is not a monolith.


I'm not sure how I can help you here. The two bishops claimed that their dioceses could not take any more turmoil - but they themselves were simultaneously provoking more turmoil. So far as I know, there was nothing particularly occult about the unwillingness of the two Bishops to follow the books - they didn't want to and did not intend to, period. Yes, one can still find such people around. The best way to ascertain why they think as they do is probably to ask them - but be prepared for a whole lot of emotional and empty verbiage by way of a non-responsive response.


The books are in print, in reasonably clear English. Read them and make up your mind for yourself!


I don't use a a ouija board - so ask around at such parishes (you may wish to wear a crash helmet). Again, compare the new edition with the red book.




Because the public worship is the Church's most visible practice and is often the only point of contact between the clergy and the faithful.


"Catholic" is one of those words that mean different things to different people. Father Taft has addressed this in the present context at some length.


Answering that question would require another book - which I don't intend to write, since it would not be edifying!


Back when I was a deacon, my pastor was fond of commenting "and they say these things with their bare faces sticking out at you!"


YES!


There we differ - the Church considers the Eucharist to be most closely related to the Gospel and Evangelism.


It's in process at the moment - and I'm not the author, so don't blame me!

Hope this has all been of some slight assistance.

Fr. Serge

After now having been through twice cover-to-cover and many more times excerpting I would once again like to thank Fr. Serge (many years!) for his efforts in writing this book; I have greatly enjoyed reading the book; the book also inspired me to seek further answers to some questions I had at the time. All Catholics should enjoy especially the frequent references to works of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger which remain pertinent regardless of a few "tweaks" in the final text compared with that which Fr. Serge was commenting on.
FDRLB

Dear Father Deacon,

Many Years to you! And thank you for your kind words. Pope Benedict has not been silent; I'm accumulating some further pertinent quotations from him.

Fr. Serge

Father Bless--

We look forward to reading them. Agree or disagree with you, I think we can all agree that your posts are interesting, well thought out and worth reading. There is only so much a lay person such as myself can know, since I did not spend years learning theology and such. It's always good to read a post that has something I did not or could not think of, due to my lack of education in the topics involved.

Thank you for taking the time to formulate your response. I hope those who disagree with you are willing to answer at least some of your points.

Tim

Christ is Risen!

The Blessing of the Lord!

Dear Tim,

Your compliments are welcome and appreciated. Just returned from Athens yesterday and am in the throes of writing some materials on other matters, but will do what I can.

Fr. Serge