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

In chapter 11, the author presents his case for continuing to recite the anaphora quietly, or, at least, for not mandating it. I would agree that this is the central issue of the whole Liturgy today. In my younger days as a Liturgy student (in the late 60's and early 70's), I did not see this as a major issue. I only began to say parts of the Anaphora aloud in my second pastoral assignment in Taylor, Michigan, in the mid-70's. In the thirty years subsequent, I have come to believe that it is central to our understanding of the Liturgy and the most important decision we can make about the future of the Liturgy. I also acknowledge what he says on page 258, that people often recite it rather than chant it. I have come to the conclusion that we should chant it.
To mandate this is a return to early practice. We do not have much evidence, it is true, about how the early liturgy was celebrated, probably because people did not feel obliged to comment on what was obvious. In the very early stages, the anaphora was ex temporaneous (cf. Alan Bouley, From Freedom to Formula), probably based on a basic outline (the Syrian Anaphora of the 12 Apostles, the model for the later Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, may have been such an outline) upon which the presider built his prayer. It is hard to imagine that this was not done for the hearing of the congregation (unless he preached to himself also). Bouley observes,
�To a very great extent it was in their worship gatherings and in their celebration of Baptism and the Lord�s Supper that Christians came gradually to a deeper understanding of the meaning of Jesus, of his promised Spirit and of themselves as the people of the new dispensation. Prayer, like preaching and instruction, not only led to new insights, but it was also the vehicle of their expression.�
It seems to me that what often happens is you decide what you want the modern practice to be, and then read this back into antiquity. It is an ancient human fault.
The author is correct to note (page 250) that there is no rubric to say the prayers quietly, except in Greek editions and in Mohyla�s editions. The Greeks certainly are more open to correcting rubrics (Trembelas points out that these rubrics begin appearing in the 16-17th centuries) than the Slavs, and Mohyla was a �reformer,� and elaborated rubrics. Following the traditional rubrics exactly, there is no reason why the priest could not say most prayers aloud, for the hearing of the people. The bishops, therefore, do not have to change rubrics to restore this practice. The Liturgical Instruction was open to the idea, calling for studies to examine the practice. Fr. Keleher gives a minimalistic interpretation to this (page 252), but, again, it is a case of what you want, and then reading back into the documents. Since the issue is, in fact, controversial among the Orthodox, it is totally inconceivable that Rome would take a stronger stand on this now. He remarks that only a small minority of Orthodox say the anaphora aloud (page 248), but the largest by far of the Orthodox Churches are the Greek and the Russian, and since they have rejected the idea of the Liturgy in the vernacular, it is hardly surprising that the question of the anaphora aloud would simply be a non-issue. This has been my contention - the reason the anaphora has been silent in both the Latin and Byzantine Churches for many centuries is that the Liturgy has been offered in classic languages that the congregation would not understand. The question of its public recitation would be simply a non-issue. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Liturgy has begun to be celebrated in the vernacular, and is it any surprise that the question has resurfaced? I refer the reader to my article, �The Public Recitation of the Presbyteral Prayers,� (Eastern Churches Journal 8, 2 (Summer 2001), 97-106, and my translation of Panagiotas Trembelas� article from 1955, �The Hearing of the Eucharistic Anaphora by the People,� in the same issue, pages 81-96.
In fact, it resurfaced long before the vernacular, probably because the anaphora is the heart of the Liturgy. Trembelas pointed out that the kollyvades (granted, not the mainstream) on Mt. Athos said the anaphora aloud in the eighteenth century. Fr. Keleher attempts to connect the practice of saying the anaphora aloud with the Renovationist Church in Russia (pages 247-248), thus giving it a kind of Soviet-sponsored coloring. Mojzes, in his recent book Il movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine (Rome 2005, 112-123) describes the movement towards the public recitation of the Anaphora in the Russian Church from 1905, as preparation for the Synod of 1917. Bishops Nazarius of Ni�nij-Novgorod and Sergius of Finland supported the proposal, along with theologians A, P. Golibtsov and V.I. Eksemplarskij (a wonderful name!) and others. He quotes Tikhon, the future Patriarch, on page 112, �it is not undesirable to read some of the prayers aloud.� Fr. Keleher then quotes the same Patriarch on page 248 an a firm opponent of the practice, but, of course, by that time, his experience would have been altered by the Renovationist Church. This is a questions that occurs over and over again - the negative experience of the Renovationist Church may certainly have been due to other factors than the recitation of the Anaphora, but all of this is lumped into one jumble. By the same token, Fr. Serge, noting that the Roman Church has been reading anaphoras aloud since 1970, cries out:
�Has understanding notably increased? Has reverence grown?� Can a lack that has existed for centuries be amended in one generation? I think not, and we have to be patient with our commitment to this restoration. Fr. Serge seems to lump together all the liturgical experiences of the Western Church and generalizes it to cover each specific practice. These positive and negative threads have to be somehow separated.
He is correct on one point. It is a matter of liturgical spirituality. Here he takes a more conservative stance - things should continue to be the way they have been for centuries. My position, also from pastoral experience, is different. The role of the deacon in the Liturgy is to offer our petitions to the Lord. And this is important, for we must lay all our needs to God, who alone provides for our lives. The role of the people is to sing hymns, and the hymns we sing glorify God and remind us of the unity of our celebration with the angelic Liturgy in heaven. But the role of the priest is to do (liturgical actio) what our Lord commanded, �Do this in memory of me,� What the priest says is what the people should come to know, for it is the memory of the great deeds of salvation that God has done for us. It is the sacrifice, and the redemption and the deification. This is the core of what the Liturgy is about and why you need a priest to celebrate it. I would hold with the author of the Protheoria in the eleventh century, commenting on the quiet recitation of the anaphora by the bishop, �the people ask what the aim of this practice is, adding that to know the prayers this way is like trying to know a garment from touching the fringes.� This is what is needed today, not the proof-textism of Fr. Serge, �a time to keep silence.�

Part 3 is Fr. Serge�s conclusion to his book. Chapter 12, entitled �Some Unanswered Questions,� returns to the methodology of chapters 8, 9 and 10, namely, a catalog of what he finds wrong with the October draft text. In dealing with a liturgical translation, I have discovered how difficult consistency and continuity can be at times, but I believe we have navigated all the more important problems. Omission of a mention of the sponge may be an oversight, but it is no longer an issue among the clergy of the Metropolia, most of whom use it. The rubrics for the placing of the particles into the chalice simply follow the Ruthenian Recension (page 43 in the 1965 translation), which also makes no distinction between the particles. (Cf. Ordo Celebrationis 161, where the deacon sanctum discum supra sanctam calicem diligenter detergit (Latin, �wipes off�), translated by Fr. Serge into English as �absterges�). In fact, if one follows the IELC translation, then the portions of the ahnec (Lamb) NI and KA will be properly divided for Communion to the faithful and another latinization will have been eliminated. The reason for the duplication of the second prayer of the faithful is that it is to be said aloud if there are catechumens, and the litany of the catechumens is chanted. Otherwise, it is said privately. This arrangement is more clear in the June 2005 draft. I would like to see the restoration of the antidoron (page 266).
Much is made of the litanies. The litanies are the primary deacon�s role in the Liturgy, the presenting of our needs to God. The primary Litany, called by the Roman Church, the prayer of the faithful, is today the Great Synapte, the Litany of Peace, which in the Byzantine Church has migrated to the beginning of the Liturgy and has been replaced, more or less, though not in the exact same place, since it would have been said after the dismissal of the catechumens, by the Ectenes after the Gospel. Both these litanies have been retained, as well as the Litany of the Angel of Peace (the aitesis), though some of its petitions have been made optional, as Fr. Serge pointed out. The remaining litanies, the two small synaptes between the antiphons, the petitions before the prayers of the faithful and the litany of Thanksgiving have been reduced, because they are, in fact, invitations of the deacon to prayer that were expanded when the prayers became silent. Since the prayers of the first and second antiphons and the prayers of the faithful are said quietly, their diaconal invitations have been omitted. For prayers that are retained aloud (the second prayer of the faithful, when there are catechumens, the prayer of access to the holy table, i.e., prayer of offering, the prayer before the Our Father and the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the diaconal invitation is retained. The omission of the Litany after the Great Entrance follows Fr. Taft�s opinion (The Great Entrance 428, �this litany should be suppressed completely�).
Two other points, however, point to a certain inconsistency in Fr. Keleher�s critique. He laments that the petition for the Pope is separated from that of the other bishops. This is a point for discussion, certainly. Fr. Peter Galadza points to it as the one �Latinism� introduced by Fr. Cyril Korolevsky into the Recension. I would support combining the petitions, but it is not a major issue. The inconsistency is that in footnote 5 on page 264, he offers as support for the conflation the permission of Rome granted to Bishop Daniel Ivancho. However, above on page 25 he minimizes this dispensation, noting that it was given only on a temporary basis. The other issue is the opening of the antimension. This clarifies the rubric about opening the �iliton,� found in the Recension according to �the overwhelming majority practice of Eastern Orthodoxy.� (Page 264) Fr. Serge justifies this from older practice and from the usage of the Old Ritualists. The inconsistency here is simply that 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. This may indeed be nit-picking, but the author has challenged the Commission to publish �clearly-stated principles and criteria� for translation, while at the same time, his book has the feel of find everything wrong with this �new� liturgy for whatever reason. I think in fairness he could have found more than two pages (131-133) of �notable improvements.�

The final chapter (13 - �What Now?) is his judgment on the process, which he sees as too hurried and more patience is needed, but as I read his words and study his principles, which sound beautiful, I also realize there is a problem with what he proposes.
I think there is little doubt any more that one of the very first goals of any liturgical work today for the Eastern Church has to include the weeding out of Western introductions, not necessarily because they are bad in themselves, but because they distort the integrity of the Byzantine experience of Liturgy. At the same time, it should be obvious that as Christians, we will have many values in common with the West, and so, while we might want to say the Creed without the �filioque,� we will read from the Epistles and Gospels at the Liturgy, and we will offer a Eucharistic Prayer with many common elements. We may even say the prayer aloud, which was suggested by Eastern theologians decades before it became common Roman practice.
However, the Eastern Church in union with Rome was certainly too much influenced by a mentality that minimalized the integrity of the Eastern tradition and strove to make the Liturgy look as Western as possible. A certain campaign of �latinization� took root in the church from a generation or two after the union of Brest until the Synod of Lviv in 1905 and the episcopate of Kyr Andrei Sheptytsky. In the twentieth century, there was a distinct movement toward the recovery of the Eastern tradition (though in all times there were people seeking the truth of tradition) culminating in the Ruthenian recension of 1941 (extended through other liturgical books until the Archieraticon of 1973), the Vatican II decree on Eastern Catholic Churches in 1965 and the Liturgical Instructioin of January 6, 1996. These have been the voice of the universal Church to the particular Churches of Eastern Catholicism: be faithful to your traditions.
This must be endorsed by every Eastern Catholic.
This is why I say that the Ruthenian Recension of 1941 was the best work that could have been done for our churches at the time. It presented to the Eastern Catholic Slav Churches a model rite freed of all �latinizations� (well, almost all, anyway) and given by the same authority that these churches had inappropriately imitated out of a feeling of cultural inferiority. It was grasped at the time by priests in the Pittsburgh Exarchate, later the Pittsburgh Metropolia, as a wondrous gift to purify and repristinize the liturgical of the Eastern Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it encountered opposition at the highest level, which nonetheless crumbled beginning with the Parma Convocation of 1970 and ending with the constitution of a new Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission by Metropolitan Judson shortly after the beginning of his episcopal service in 1995. This has been marked by the slow and systematic elimination of all �latinizations,� and the substantial liturgical reforms of communion to infants and baptism by immersion. Yes, there have been defects, but not so much as to characterize Fr. Serge�s dour judgement of the �unfortunate history of liturgical development.� (Page 267)
What I am about to say might be misinterpreted by some, but I certainly do not want to down-play what is certainly one of the greatest liturgical achievements of the past century, the virtual creation of a Ruthenian recension devoid of latinization that could serve as a model for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in a renewed Eastern Catholic Church. When Korolevskij began his project of producing an edition of the pure Ruthenian rite, he was faced by the reality that this recension had been modified for decades, even centuries by latinizing influences. He kept the Liturgicon of Benedict XIV (1724) as the legal foundation for the resoration of the rite, and compared manuscripts and printed editions to come up with a pure Slav version. The rite could not be restored exactly as it had been before the Union of Brest, but he had faith that he could come close. For this reason, he frequently utilized Russian books, as he explained, �It was also very true, as Archbishop Joseph Sembratovych... and Father Ivan Martinov were obliged to recognize later, that the Trebnik of the Russians represented the text of the Euchologion of Benedict XIV much more faithfully than the Ruthenian Trebniks, for the simple reason that the Russian Trebnik was nothing other than a reproduction of that published in Moscow in 1658 by the Patriarch Nicon, which depended in its turn on the Venetian edition of Giovanni Pietro Pinelli in 1638.� (Votum, p. 34) Likewise, publicly in his M�tropolit Andr� Szeptyckyj 1865-1944 (Rone 1964), Korolevskij stated , �In these different editions, an attempt was made to compare the different versions of the text and to respect the rendering of the Ruthenians every time theur tradition was unanimous and constant: otherwise it was the text of Moscow which prevailed.� (p. 347)
What I do intend to accomplish here is to show that the Ruthenian Recension, conceived of as the books put together as a model for the Ruthenian Church - Ukraininan, Carpatho-Russian, Slovak, if you will, and other ethnic groups - is an artifact, a composition from different sources, including the Russian books. It reflects accurately the Divine Liturgy as it should be celebrated among the ethnic groups listed above, but which was actually not in use, because from very soon after the Union, the rite was corrupted was the introduction of inappropriate �latinizations.� The Ruthenian Liturgy, if I may use that term, however, is not the books, but the Liturgy that is celebrated from these books, just as the Gospel is not a number of pages in a book, but the words of God as heard and appropriated by the people. In the beginning there was some resistence to what essentially was the work of Cyril Korolevskij, though his work certainly reflected the authentic tradition. In time, though, it did become the standard for the Liturgy in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The Liturgy Commission does its work with the Ruthenian recension as the normative text always and at all times. What has happened in history is that the text was issued to, but not promulgated by, the bishops of the Metropolia to their clergy and faithful. The Older norms were to be followed until the bishops said to use the 1941 recension. The 1965 translation literally reproduced in English the 1941 text, but it was made clear that the form of celebration was to be the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik. Fr. Serge praises Bishop Emil (Mihalik) of Parma for �promulgating� the recension (page 37). Of course, it was a promulgation according to pastoral usages, omitting most of the litanies et cet. At the same time, the Liturgicon of the Eparchy of Parma in 1986, later accepted by the Eparchy if Van Nuys, and then by Passaic when Bishop Andrew was transferred there in 1996 is the same project, now containing even more of the litanic material. This is also the goal of the whole Metropolia, initiated by Archbishop Judson, and carried out by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. However, the same project, highly praised in the form Bishop Emil did it, is just as strongly condemned in the form Bishop Andrew did it, and as Archbishop Judson intended to do. Why? Because Bishop Mihalik�s letter did not touch the 1965 Liturgicon, but was a pastoral guide to how it may be celebrated. The subsequent promulgations included a Liturgicon with the revised text in it. The bottom line was that, before, any priest who really wanted to serve the full text could, though few did. On the other hand, in the past publishing a �full text� and then issuing pastoral provisions has led to a lot of liturgical mischief.
Fr. Serge does fall back upon the �bridge theory� of ecumenism: �The honor of the Catholic Church is involved. Rome urges Greek-Catholics to be conscious of the liturgical and spiritual treasures which Greek-Catholics hold in common with the Eastern Orthodox. If this draft were to be adopted, it would give substance to the accusation that such pious statements from Rome are simply window-dressing and that in reality Rome wants a revisionist liturgy to drive a further wedge between the Greek-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.� (Page 267) This statement is a bit of hyperbole. First, it is hardly a �revisionist� Liturgy, and second, it does nothing that Orthodox Churches are not doing anyhow. It just that now it is being put into a Liturgicon intended for the use of four eparchies of the Church. What Fr. Serge�s opinion does is discourage �organic development.� Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytsky and Cyril Korolevsky hoped that by celebrating a �pure Byzantine Liturgy,� the orthodox would be more attracted to the Catholic Church. As ecumenism has developed, this hardly seems possible, since the issues of the broken communion are much deeper than liturgical practice. Of course, we must work for the restoration of Communion, but on a realistic level. Any liturgical movement now among Greek Catholics is, by its very nature, I firmly believe, provisional. If reunion occurs, there will have to be a reintegration of the Eastern Catholic Church into the Orthodox structure. I daresay that then perhaps the organic development and the pastoral ministry adopted by the Eastern Catholics will be accepted into the Orthodox Church. We must not underestimate the Ruthenians. They had the courage and foresight to make the great move from Church Slavonic to English at a time when it was a minority position, and I think now they have the courage to restore not only a genuinely Eastern Liturgy, but one that, in the words of a knowledgeable Orthodox priest-observor, �brings out the best potential of the Byzantine Liturgy.�
Many of the suggestions in Fr. Keleher�s final chapter are admirable, and some are under active consideration and even in process by the Ruthenian Church. Education is certainly important, but the program of the presentation of the liturgical work to the people whom the pastors serve is still in its early stages. There is patience! The liturgical work has been forty years in coming, it has not just begun, and the work of the Liturgy Commission continues at a deliberate pace. There has been much progress in a thicket of varying opinions that are sometimes difficult to reconcile and balance. One observation made by Fr. Keleher, however, is quite unfair. On page 278, he writes, �Especially in difficult and confusing times, most people prefer stability, and in particular most people want stability and reassurance in their Church life. There is joy and comfort in the year-after-year observance of the feasts and fasts: Holy Supper this Christmas, the Great Blessing of Waters this Theophany, the services and Divine Liturgy for the dead on the appointed Saturdays, Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts this Lent, the Epitaphios this Good Friday, the triumphant procession and Resurrection Orthros this Pascha - few people seriously want new services every year for the familiar feast days.� Most certainly neither the Council of Hierarchs, nor the Liturgy Commission, nor the clergy nor the people of the Ruthenian Church have ever considered in any way dropping these services. The only point can be an attempt to somehow paint the supporters of the October 2004 draft as Judases to the Byzantine tradition, which they most assuredly are not.

This finishes the review. I have made some modifications to the earlier text, for example, in regard to the opening and closing of the Royal Doors, but these will be available later on my web site.

I thank Father David for his comments. I agree with his point that dialogue can be used for understanding and that understanding may or may not lead to agreement.

Regarding change, I am not stating that we should never change. Perhaps I should take advantage of this opportunity to better state what I believe.

The Byzantine Liturgy is the common property of the entire Byzantine Church (both Orthodox and Catholic). The Ruthenian Liturgy (all those liturgical books published by Rome beginning in 1941) is the common property of the entire Ruthenian Recension (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that make up this recension). As a local sui iuris Church within the Ruthenian recension we have no authority to alter the Ruthenian Liturgy. If the Council of Hierarchs desires to give permission for a litany to be omitted or to alter a rubric he can do so via appropriate liturgical directives. A Council of Hierarchs does not have the authority to publish a Liturgicon (or any official liturgical book) that deviates from those of the Ruthenian recension. Should the Council of Hierarchs desire to make changes to the Liturgy they would have to seek agreement from either the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (for those elements unique to the Ruthenian recension) or the entire Byzantine Church (for those elements common to all Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). [And even here it would have to be legitimate organic development.] If whatever change is proposed is from the Spirit, He will make it happen in His time. This is really not just my opinion here, but a summary of what the Vatican has told us to do in its various instructions (which I have quoted at length in previous discussions).

So I reject any changes to the service books of the Ruthenian recension that are not done by common agreement of all those Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension. Ditto for those changes that need to be made across the entire Byzantine Church.

Regarding English editions of the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension, I believe that they should be literally faithful to the official editions published by Rome (beginning in 1941). Ideally, they should be prepared in a joint effort by all the Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension. I realize that this is not currently possible, but I do have hopes for the future since Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod are publicly on record as favoring such an effort. [This makes sense since it brings more talented people to the table.]

If we are to prepare our own English language editions of the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension they need to be as faithful to official texts as is possible (no purposefully changed texts or rubrics). Father David has argued that this puts undue restrictions on the bishops to respond pastorally. I respectfully strongly disagree with this position. I do not see anything unpastoral in the 1942 Ruthenian Liturgy. Even if I were to support many of the changes Father David is arguing for I would submit that it is extremely unpastoral to both our Church and the larger Byzantine Church to make such changes in isolation. The latinizations and abbreviations mandated by previous bishops in our Church were all claimed to be pastorally necessary. From where I stand the only true pastoral move for our Church regarding liturgy is to finally implement the 1942 Ruthenian recension as official and normative for our Church in this country, and then to spend the next generation raising the level of Liturgy in parishes to conform to it. If new scholarship shows flaws in the official Ruthenian books the official books can be amended by common agreement of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension.

Regarding translations, I believe that they should be of the �essentially literal� style. By �essentially literal� I mean what the translators of the Holy Scriptures mean � as literal as is possible and as elegant as possible. The essentially literally style does not demand inelegant English. It does not mean using �up your hearts� instead of �lift up your hearts�.

I could recap here a number of specific examples from this thread but for the moment I will limit myself to two:

Example A - In item No. 6 our current petition is �For this holy church and for all who enter it with faith, reverence, and the fear of God, let us pray to the Lord.� The term �church� is not the most accurate here. I mentioned earlier that I prefer the term �house� but now I see that the term �house� is good Greek but that the Slavonic term is �temple�. So this leads to a number of questions in this logical flow:

1. Is the continued use of the term �church� inaccurate to the point of demanding a correction?

2A. If �No� then keep the term �church�.

2B. If �Yes� then examine the alternatives in step 3.

3. Is �temple� or �house� the best translation of the Slavonic term?

4. �Temple� is the best translation of the Slavonic term. [Then �temple� it shall be!]

So if the term �church� is judged so inaccurate that it needs to be changed (and I don�t think that case has been made yet) then it should be changed to �temple�. [Even though I personally prefer �house� � but the Greek is not normative for us and should not supersede the Slavonic.]

Example B � �May our lips be filled�. Father David noted that the distinction between �lips� and �mouth� is of minimal importance. He also noted that they chose to follow the Greek literally. Why? I can accept that �mouth� is a literal translation from the Greek but we are not supposed to use the Greek except as a reference to what the Slavonic means (in cases of ambiguity). �Lips� is apparently the proper translation from the Slavonic term, so why change anything here? I would put the logical flow of questions like this:

1. Is the continued use of the term �lips� inaccurate to the point of demanding a correction?

2A. If �No� then keep the term �lips�.

2B. If �Yes� then examine the alternatives in step 3.

And etc.

The point here is that if a translation already exists and is well known it must first be shown to be incorrect before it can be altered (Father David makes this point well when speaking of not changing the commonly know text of the Lord�s Prayer). Many of the proposed translations fall into the category of being different, but not necessarily better. We are not dealing here with just words on a page. This is not just an intellectual exercise. We are dealing here with the very stability of worship.

My underlying motive here is not "simply to make the Pittsburgh Metropolia a 'safe zone' for any priest(s) to do what he wants." My underlying motive here is to make the official liturgical books from the 1942 Ruthenian recension normative for our Church. I have seen parishes that have embraced them become vibrant and spirit-filled. I know that the 1942 Liturgy is pastoral and good for our Church. Indeed, it is good for all of Orthodoxy!

It seems to me that we need to live the fullness of the Ruthenian recension before we can know it and understand it as Church. Until we have a full slate of Vespers, Matins and a very full Divine Liturgy in most of our parishes we � as Church � will not have a real understanding of the majesty of our inheritance. That is why I strongly oppose the proposed changes. It is like attempting to prune dead branches from a tree in the middle of the winter. When one attempts this one is highly likely to cut off the most wonderful and fruit producing branches without even knowing it. No, we must work first towards a full implementation of our 1942 Ruthenian Liturgy. Only after living it for a generation or two, when we have a Church fully formed by the fullness of our tradition, will we be able to discern which branches may be pruned and which ones are poised to offer us wonderful fruit.

Admin

Admin,

"The Byzantine Liturgy is the common property of the entire Byzantine Church (both Orthodox and Catholic). The Ruthenian Liturgy (all those liturgical books published by Rome beginning in 1941) is the common property of the entire Ruthenian Recension (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that make up this recension). As a local sui iuris Church within the Ruthenian recension we have no authority to alter the Ruthenian Liturgy."

While not disagreeing with you in theory, it seems to me that the foundation of your arguement is based on an unworkable premise. While the Ruthenian Recension, and Russian and Greek Recension as well, exist as bodies of liturgical works they are not a juridic persons. The only way things get done is by Sui Iuris Churches. Rome, as far as I can tell, is not going to force the various Sui Iuris Churches that use the Ruthenian Recension to do anything in concert. Otherwise, why are they giving recognition to work done by Liturgical Commissions of these various Sui Iuirs Churches?

While Rome has published books as a standard from which to draw on it appears that Rome does not expect them to be followed without exception. Indeed Rome granted exceptions both to Bishop Daniel and again to the current Hierarchy.

While I understand your arguement, it appears that Rome does not agree with you and if Rome will not enforce your theory that a local Church does not have the authority to revise the Liturgy, on what foundation can you argue they do not have the authority to do it? You could certainly argue that it should not be done so as to be faithful to the Byzantine tradition as a whole and our Recension in particular but not that the Hierarchs don't have the authority because it certainly appears they do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I would like to offer a few comments on Father David�s response to Father Serge.

First, on the proposal of mandating that the anaphora prayers be prayed aloud. Father David is certainly immovable in his position and I do not think anything we say here will change him. It seems to me, however, that none of what Father David has written has supports his call for a mandate that the anaphora and other presbyteral/episcopal prayers be prayed aloud. To a very great extent he is doing exactly what he accuses Father Serge of doing � starting with a conclusion and than tailoring bits from history to make the case for the conclusion. If anything, the logical conclusion of what he has written can only be freedom, freedom for the Spirit to lead. And he certainly has still not addressed the fact that the anaphora began to be prayed quietly long before the liturgical language ceased to be the vernacular. An understanding of this is vital to this discussion. Finally on this point, one needs to take into consideration what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has written, that perhaps silence is best (I�ve posted excerpts on this in an earlier discussion).

Father David wrote: �First, it is hardly a �revisionist� Liturgy, and second, it does nothing that Orthodox Churches are not doing anyhow.�

This is a false statement. The Orthodox Churches are certainly not issuing new Liturgicons en masse that mandate the praying of the Anaphora and the other presbyteral prayers aloud. They are not issuing Liturgicons that remove Litanies and other parts of the Divine Liturgy. At best the Orthodox are in the very early experimental stages. One does not issue mandates based upon the fact that someone else might be experimenting.

The closest that Father David could claim about a real Liturgicon in this regard is the Johnstown Liturgicon (which omits some litanies and etc.). It was published with the intention to serve as a stepping stone to more authentic Ruthenian Liturgy and only a transitional document. I do not know if Metropolitan Nicholas has the intention of raising the standard of Liturgy in the Johnstown Diocese to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension but I do know that he expects it to keep rising in that direction (he has said so publicly), and that he has no intention of prohibiting the celebration of the fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy as is being proposed in our Church. I also know that Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod are willing to work with us to produce a common translation that is faithful to the Roman edition of the Ruthenian recension.

Father David wrote: Most certainly neither the Council of Hierarchs, nor the Liturgy Commission, nor the clergy nor the people of the Ruthenian Church have ever considered in any way dropping these services.

I suggest that this statement is misleading. Certainly we have not dropped the services listed but there have been major modifications to some of them that are not faithful to the Ruthenian liturgical tradition. One look at the people fleeing from the once mandated (here in Passaic) Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Paschal Matins combination tells us that the goal is not to be faithful to the Ruthenian recension. Not only is such a combination bad theology (the Eucharist is always the high point of all the Divine Services) it has chased numerous people out of our Church. I do not label the supporters of the proposed revisions as �Judases� because clearly they mean well. From where I stand they have bought into many of the worst ideas from the 1960s reforms in the Roman Catholic Church and are simply trying to apply them to our Church.

The way forward is clear. We need to reject all of the reforms. We need to publish a new edition of the 1964/1965 Liturgicon that corrects only those texts that are in error or somehow a departure from the 1942 Liturgy. Then, Metropolitan Basil needs to speak with Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod and all the bishops of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension in English speaking countries to discuss the possibility of creating a single, united effort at producing common editions of our liturgical books.

Father Lance,

You raise some good questions.

I don�t think that the foundation of my argument is based on an unworkable premise. I will agree that it is unlikely but it is certainly not unworkable. Something tells me that if Metropolitan Basil started speaking with the other bishops of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) just here in North America about half of them would be very interested. We know from their public statements that both Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod are definitely interested. Leadership toward a common edition of our books would repay huge benefits in Christian unity in future generations.

I have no idea why Rome has acted as it has. Your question here is a very good one. Perhaps the Oriental Congregation has never asked us to prepare common translations because they have never thought about it? Or maybe they simply believe that we are not capable of getting along well enough to accomplish it? This is an excellent question to ask the Oriental Congregation. Perhaps now is an excellent time to ask them and to make such a suggestion? Of course Rome can only ask the Orthodox Churches if they are interested, but even if a common English language edition was created for all Byzantine / Greek Catholics that would be a huge step forward.

Regarding the exceptions granted to Bishop Daniel, I will have to re-read the published copy of the letter when I get home this evening. I believe that all or nearly all of the exemptions were temporary in nature. Surely those temporary exceptions have expired by now?

The foundation upon which I make my argument for literal adherence to the Ruthenian recension is one that considers both canon law (bishops are specifically called to be faithful to their traditions in publishing liturgical books), the Liturgical Instruction (which tells us to be faithful and to mimic the organic changes occurring within Orthodoxy) and many other documents. But we�re getting off topic here. I�d be happy to enter into this conversation in new thread, so that we don�t take this thread off topic.

Admin

I have every intention of responding to Father David and others - but obviously I'm not going to be able to do so in one evening. Please be patient,

Fr. Serge

I agree 100% with Father David. We need to implement the Ordo and patiently celebrate it for more than one generation in order to see the fruits of the restoration.

Oops! He wasn�t talking about waiting to see the fruits of restoring the Ruthenian recension before changing it. He was talking about the recent innovation of forcing the priest to pray the anaphora out loud.

In regard to the last two postings by the Administrator, I will reply, trying to be as brief as posible, since we simply go around in circles on these point.
1) The principles brought forth by the Administrator: that an individual church cannot publish a liturgical book unless they are in literal conformity with the Ruthenian liturgical books of 1941-1973, and that changes cannot be introduced except by unanimous consent are simply his own opinions, which, if adopted, would make even organic development (allowed by Vatican II, the Code of Canon Law and the Liturgical Instruction of 1996) impossible. Indeed, following this principle, we should not even have the vernacular, since the bulk of the Byzantine Rite (the Greek and Russian Churches) refuse to allow the vernacular. The proposed books were in fact permitted by the Oriental Congregation (which is a fact, whether the Administrator wishes to admit it or not), and conform to the Ruthenian Recension in spirit and allow for some organic development. The Administrator is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension. His "principles" are designed to maintain the status quo and, of course, would continue to permit priests to do what they want for their parishes.
2) A translation can be changed only if it is incorrect? Why? Varying translation can be correct, yet one can be better, why not choose the better. Note that I am speaking here only in principle, not with regard to any particular translation. How that applies to the Our Father (which Fr. Serge thinks is incorrect) is quite unclear. And in regard to translation, the Liturgy Commission used the Greek text as the basis, and corrected it to the Slavonic only when necessary. The 1964/65 translation used the Slavonic as a basis and corrected it to the Greek - because they didn't know Greek well.
3) "like attempting to prune dead branches from a tree in the middle of winter." I think the real winter was from 1965-1995, when any movement to a more Eastern form of worship was resisted. Metropolitan Judson began a new spring, and the Administrator would like to cut back the buds before they bloom. A moratorium on gardening metaphors would aid dialogue!
4) I don't need to explain the "fact" that the anaphora became silent before the Greek vernacular changed for the simple reason that it us not a "fact." The Administrator simply presupposes this and I guess he considers his presuppositions to be "facts." I hardly think so. The praying aloud of the anaphora does not even require a change in rubrics.
5) "The Orthodox are in the early experimental stages." Changes and restorations have been proposed and done for over a century. Read Marcel Mojzes' book, "Il Movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine." The Administrator seems to think that eveything that happens begins with his consciousness of the fact.
6) His comments on the Paschal scheduling of services show that many of his problems are Passaic problems.

Fr. Dave

This thread has started to digress from the topic again. Posts not related to this book have been removed or edited.

Michael B.

Michael,

Respectfully, the discussion on the use of the term "Orthodox" is on pages 172-3 of Father Serge's book. I think you went too far in deleting our posts because we do not cite chapter, page and verse. I actually think the exchange was quite interesting. Any chance you could restore it?

Gordo

Gordo et al,

It was the stated policy and when this section was created, it would be devoted to the discussion of books, the content and merits exclusively. Some of our posters can not abide by this rule and policy and have tried many times of bringing issues and posts not dealing with the book into this thread. Without references to the book or its content, a post is generally assumed to be without relation to the book. The moderator in this case is trying extremely hard to keep this thread within the policy and rule of this section and on topic. Unfortunately without that reference to the book, the post was deleted. Once deleted the post can not be recovered.

Now for others that continue to not follow the policy and rules of this section, your posts will continue to be deleted and may force the permanent closure of this thread. I believe that this is more than the third warning on this thread regarding this matter. Another section has been provided for other posts in regards to the proposed changes to the Divine Liturgy and should be used. In simple terms, if you do not have the book, do not comment on this thread or other threads in the Books Forum.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Father Anthony and Brother Michael,

Perhaps I missed some of the disrepectful posts you are referring to, or was doing some selective reading and did not realize it! (Believe it or not, I do get up from time to time!) I was referring to the exchange between Father Deacon Lance and Father Serge, which did not seem disrespectful at all.

I gladly yield to my esteemed colleague, Michael the moderator and his discernment!

God bless,

Gordo

I want to respond to Father David�s post to me dated 7/13/2006 at 10:48 AM (quoted above). Since this conversation is not directly related to the subject of Father Serge�s excellent book I have started a new thread in �The Revised Divine Liturgy� forum. Please see the thread: : �A Discussion with Father David about Reform�. The new thread begins with a reposting of his comments to me above.

Thanks again to Father David and all who participate in these discussions.

In responding to Father David�s lengthy double set of comments on 11 July, it is difficult to know where to begin. Father David accuses me of tempting him �to reply with the same sarcasm - but this is a discussion of something holy.�

A discussion of the Divine Liturgy is certainly a discussion of something holy. Would that Father David and his colleagues had kept this in mind before recasting the Divine Liturgy with (metaphorical) scissors and cellotape.

Father David writes a most edifying encomium, a veritable panegyric, a paean of praise in honour of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension, in these words:
�the Ruthenian Recension of 1941 was the best work that could have been done for our churches at the time. It presented to the Eastern Catholic Slav Churches a model rite freed of all �latinizations� (well, almost all, anyway) and given by the same authority that these churches had inappropriately imitated out of a feeling of cultural inferiority. It was grasped at the time by priests in the Pittsburgh Exarchate, later the Pittsburgh Metropolia, as a wondrous gift to purify and repristinize the liturgical [life?] of the Eastern Catholic Church. . . . certainly one of the greatest liturgical achievements of the past century, the virtual creation of a Ruthenian Recension devoid of latinization that could serve as a model for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in a renewed Eastern Catholic Church. When Korolevsky began his project of producing an edition of the pure Ruthenian rite, he was faced by the reality that this Recension had been modified for decades, even centuries by latinizing influences. He kept the Liturgicon of Benedict XIV (1724) as the legal foundation for the restoration of the rite, and compared manuscripts and printed editions to come up with a pure Slav version. The rite could not be restored exactly as it had been before the Union of Brest, but he had faith that he could come close.�
This raises a question which Father David persistently refuses to answer: If the Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy is
�a wondrous gift to purify and repristinize the liturgical [life?] of the Eastern Catholic Church. . . . certainly one of the greatest liturgical achievements of the past century, . . . a model for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in a renewed Eastern Catholic Church�
why, then, is Father David implacably opposed to the idea that the Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy should be used in liturgical practice? Others as well as myself have often posed this question and Father David never answers it.
On one point, his panegyric is correct; this �Recension� was and is �the virtual creation of a Ruthenian Recension�. Exactly � the hierarchs were promised a genuine restoration of the Liturgy as it had been at the time of the Union of Brest. That is not what came off the press. But this is a matter for discussion in another context. Father David writes that
�the Ruthenian Recension, conceived of as the books put together as a model for the Ruthenian Church � Ukraininan [sic] , Carpatho-Russian, Slovak, if you will, and other ethnic groups � is an artifact, a composition from different sources, including the Russian books. It reflects accurately the Divine Liturgy as it should be celebrated among the ethnic groups listed above, but which was actually not in use, because from very soon after the Union, the rite was corrupted was the introduction of inappropriate �latinizations.�
Is Father David in effect asserting that the Nikonian editions are the closest that scholars can come to the authentic Liturgy of the Kyivan tradition as it was at the time of the Union of Brest and the Union of Uzhhorod? I would dispute that proposition, and am prepared to produce liturgical books from the early seventeenth century to substantiate this denial.
Father David writes that the Ruthenian Recension is a model for the
�Ruthenian Church � Ukraininan [sic] , Carpatho-Russian, Slovak, if you will, and other ethnic groups . . . It reflects accurately the Divine Liturgy as it should be celebrated among the ethnic groups�.
But Father David defends a project which will distance his own Metropolia from all the others whom he lists, and with whom his Metropolia has this liturgical form in common. If the Hierarchy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia were to seek and obtain the backing of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Synod, the Eparchy of Mukachiv, the Eparchy of Hajdudorog and the Slovak Eparchies, the moral position of this project would be significantly stronger � but has such a discussion even been initiated? There is no indication of such an approach. Had the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Synod been approached on the subject, I would know it.
Nevertheless, the question above is even more to the point � if the Ruthenian Recension is such a pinnacle of perfection and �reflects accurately the Divine Liturgy as it should be celebrated� why does Father David not wish to encourage its use, nor even to give the clergy and the faithful the opportunity to experience it?

In a closely related matter, regarding Chapter 9, point 10 of my book, Father David writes:
�thank goodness someone finally recognized that the 1965 translation is not an �Inspired text.� �
To the very best of my recollection, I have never and nowhere written or said anything at all which could have reasonably been taken to indicate that I considered the 1965 translation to be an �Inspired text�! Nor do I know of anyone who appears to hold such an opinion, although there are certainly people who like that translation. The Administrator has suggested that the 1965 translation should be corrected and improved where necessary and reprinted � I understand him to mean that change should be held to a reasonable minimum for the sake of stability. I was ordained Priest in 1967. That autumn I bought a copy of the 1965 translation, tried using it for a few months, and found that it needed so many corrections that it wasn�t worth the trouble. So I began using the OCA text, and have used the OCA text ever since when I have needed to serve in English (such occasions are rare in Ireland � I honestly don�t remember when the last time I served in English was). I have never recommended the 1965 translation of the texts to anyone (I have several times recommended the 1965 translation of the rubrics, apart from the mis-placed Third Antiphon). In one crucial respect, the 1965 book is much better than the draft text of 2004: the 1965 book is complete and presents an English translation of the 1941 Church-Slavonic edition from Rome. But the English translation in Christ With Us , published over a decade previously, is considerably more accurate.

Father David refers to �the Synod of Lviv in 1905� . There was no Synod of L�viv in 1905. Father David writes that
�the largest by far of the Orthodox Churches are the Greek and the Russian, and � they have rejected the idea of the Liturgy in the vernacular� .
No, they have not rejected the idea of the Liturgy in the vernacular. The Greek Church retains liturgical Greek for complex reasons (including the natural respect for the original text and a discontent with the Greek government�s short-sighted policy of refusing to permit the teaching of classical Greek in the school system), and the Russian Church retains Church-Slavonic, because after all the turmoil of the twentieth century this might not be the most propitious moment to abandon Church-Slavonic, but neither the Greek Church nor the Russian Church are opposed to vernacular languages on principle � in the USA the Greek Church and the Russian Church both use English, for example, without any serious difficulty, and in places where there is need, they both use some Spanish. The Russian Church pioneered the liturgical use of the indigenous languages in Alaska (Father Cyril Korolevsky writes about this at some length). The Russian Church published one or two liturgical books in English in the 19th century, and both encouraged and enabled Isabel Hapgood to translate and publish her landmark Service Book in 1905. The Church of Greece gives substantial assistance to the Orthodox in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is much use made of the local languages.

Father David writes that
�there are many variant old practices and many variations in the Old Ritualist Liturgicons�.
Are there indeed? Interesting. Would Father David be so kind as to provide examples of some of these �many variations in the Old Ritualist Liturgicons�, citing, of course, �chapter and verse�? I have a respectable collection of Old-Ritualist service books and I have friends who also have such collections, so there will be no particular difficulty in verifying whatever �many variations in the Old Ritualist Liturgicons� Father David cares to produce. This means printed books carrying the approval of the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church (since the Priestless communities would have no particular use for a Liturgicon); these books were printed � with great care � by Archbishop John of Moscow in the decade between the Ukaz of freedom of religion in 1905 and the commencement of World War I, and are now being reprinted in Russia with the approval of successive Metropolitans of Moscow; during 70 years of wars, persecution and (among other things) book-burning these books became scarce. I await Father David�s list with keen interest.

Father David complains that it is unfair to hold him personally responsible for this entire project. He may be right. The trouble arises on this point because Father David has somehow become the �front man�, presenting this project (to the limited extent that it has been presented) and defending it. Thus the other members of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission are, in effect, hiding behind Father David � and Father David is simultaneously trying to hide behind them!
Still, one may reasonably inquire why Father David is so sensitive on this point. If he is not the prime mover, so to speak, in this project, then let the others who accept responsibility for it show themselves instead of hiding. If he is the prime mover, he is entitled to the credit.

Father David also accuses me of unfairness. I quote this in extenso so that it may be clear to the reader:
�One observation made by Fr. Keleher, however, is quite unfair. On page 278, he writes, �Especially in difficult and confusing times, most people prefer stability, and in particular most people want stability and reassurance in their Church life. There is joy and comfort in the year-after-year observance of the feasts and fasts: Holy Supper this Christmas, the Great Blessing of Waters this Theophany, the services and Divine Liturgy for the dead on the appointed Saturdays, Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts this Lent, the Epitaphios this Good Friday, the triumphant procession and Resurrection Orthros this Pascha ‒ few people seriously want new services every year for the familiar feast days.� Most certainly neither the Council of Hierarchs, nor the Liturgy Commission, nor the clergy nor the people of the Ruthenian Church have ever considered in any way dropping these services. The only point can be an attempt to somehow paint the supporters of the October 2004 draft as Judases to the Byzantine tradition, which they most assuredly are not.� I have not accused the Council of Hierarchs, nor the Liturgy Commission, nor the clergy nor the people of the Ruthenian Church of seeking to drop any or all of these services. That should be clear even from Father David�s quote, since it is impossible to imagine any authority which could seriously attempt to interfere with the Holy Supper � the first item I mention � because the Holy Supper takes place in the home and does not require the involvement of the clergy. My point is exactly what I wrote in the book: �most people prefer stability, and in particular most people want stability and reassurance in their Church life.� That also applies to the Sunday Divine Liturgy.
But in March 2005, when new-calendar Easter and new-calendar Annunciation coincided, there was some tension over the form of the combined observances mandated by the liturgical authorities of the Ruthenian Metropolia. I�ve never seen the specifics of what was sent out for use, but I remember the complaints only too well. I did not in any way participate in those complaints � but the sensus fidelium certainly seemed to be that someone was tampering seriously with the Good Friday services. It is entirely possible that the complaints were not accurate, and that the form mandated (which, again, I have not seen) was based on the Typicon�s provisions for that coincidence � but it is clear that the faithful, and even the clergy, had not been adequately prepared for what came as a shock. From this, it would be well to learn that the preparatory work of education must precede , not follow, the introduction of changes.

Father David accuses me of what amounts to falsifying his words: �in many cases, [SK] says, Fr. David concedes the point� when, as he now asserts, Father David has done no such thing. Let�s have a look:

A. On the matter of the terminology of the Altar, I wrote: Father David concedes that �Fr. Keleher may be right in calling for more consistency here�. The quote can easily be verified from Father David�s posting of 4 July.

B. On the matter of the use of the word �Orthodox�, I wrote: Father David writes, in full, that �The question of the use of �Orthodox� continues to be vexing for some people. I certainly don�t think we should fear the word �orthodox.� I see a problem in us claiming to be �Orthodox,� when we are not in communion with the world-wide �Orthodox Church,� but my take here seems to be idiosyncratic.�. Unless I misunderstand him completely, he has conceded my point, in which case he has my thanks. I did indeed give Father David�s words in full; have I misunderstood them?

C. Concerning the term �alms� Father David wrote that �The suggestion (�alms�) is intriguing and deserves more consideration.� I responded that �Father David likes the suggestion of the term �alms�, so he has my thanks.� Did I misunderstand his words? If so, how?

D. With regard to my point 12 of Chapter 9 in the book, Father David wrote that �It is an exact citation, of course, but a mea culpa is due for not noticing Fr. Taft�s intervention.� I responded: �Father David accepts my point, and apologises for having overlooked Father Taft on this one. Apology accepted with thanks. And at the end of his discussion, Father David writes that he is moved to make this change. For those who might not know the phrase, �mea culpa� is an acknowledgement that one is or has been at fault.

E. On my point 14 in Chapter 9, Father David wrote that �The �logical� sacrifice. As stated, it is, of course, not good English. I myself would agree that �rational� sacrifice is probably the closest we can get, though �rational,� (and likewise �intellectual� for �noetical,� which does not occur in the Liturgy but is a consistent problem in the Divine Praises) does not have the same range of meaning in English as it does in Greek.� Since he states plainly here that he himself �would agree that �rational� sacrifice is probably the closest we can get� , he has conceded my point. If he doesn�t want my thanks, he is under no obligation to accept my thanks.

Well, Father David has conceded at least a significant minority of my points. It is not my fault that he seems embarrassed to have done so.

With regard to chapter 10, my book describes the points raised as �questionable�, not as �erroneous�. This obviously implies that these points are not indefensible.

Father David writes �On No. 1 - (the title despota). Yes, people knows what �master� means, but that does not explain how it is a title (Master-mind, past master, chess master, school-master, master chef). I might say someone is a �jack of all trades,� but this does not mean I am giving him the title �Jack.� . Likewise, I might actually call someone �stupid,� but would not begin the Liturgy, �Hey, stupid, give the blessing.� �
�Jack� however, is not a title, and is not a polite way to address anyone unless that really is his name (C.S. Lewis was an exception: Jack was not his name, but he insisted on being addressed that way by his family and friends). Yes, one �might say someone is a �jack of all trades,� but Father David has left the expression unfinished. The usual complete expression is �jack of all trades and master of none� � which adequately indicates the difference between the jack and the Master. As I wrote previously, �there is no particular reason to assume that the retention of �Master� in its accustomed place in liturgical texts would cause people any serious confusion.�

Father David then asserts that �On No. 4, [SK�s] argument for �ages of ages� is anecdotal.� Anecdotal evidence (which is probably what he means) is admissible, particularly in a discussion of translations, where much depends upon the context of a word or phrase and how it is understood. Moreover, the anecdotal evidence, while real, is secondary to my argument. �Forever� does not mean the same thing as �unto ages of ages�. Father David completely ignores the strong, major point that the obstinate refusal to use the accurate translation �unto ages of ages� necessarily broadens the gap between Greek-Catholics and the overwhelming majority of Anglophone Eastern Orthodox. On this point I invite Father David and everyone else to read my previous posting again. If need be, I will post what I wrote on this point in 1998 in Logos .

Father David asks (rhetorically, I presume):
�am I a schoolboy that must answer to teacher? I think not, and for that reason, refuse to answer his question.�
Some of his recent postings might cause readers to regard Father David�s question as interesting. A mature, respected scholar in his sixties does not feel the need to repeat this or that simple, declaratory sentence ten times over, one after the other, as a child in a sandbox might do.
Meanwhile, at the time that I wrote I was assuming that I was dealing someone who is able to carry on an academic discussion without such devices. The object of the entire exercise is not to insult Father David or anyone else, but to enable all of us to increase our knowledge of the Divine Liturgy. Father David may think my question is stupid; that is his privilege. But there are ways of responding without reverting to the sandbox.
Father David mentions that he does not have the tapes from the 1988 Stamford seminar. If he requests a set from the Sheptytsky Institute he will receive them without charge.
Meanwhile, he mentions that he disagrees with Father Taft on a particular phrase (kata panta kai dia panta). That is, of course, his privilege. But it would be far more helpful if he would be so kind as to offer sources to support his understanding of the phrase in question.
That is a problem in this entire discussion. Whatever else about my book, no one will deny that I did a fairly complete job of substantiating what I wrote with references to sources and to authoritative works on the subject. Father David seems to ignore these references (with a few exceptions which I shall discuss below). He also seldom offers sources in support of his own position � he seems to suggest that he is right because he is right, and those who think differently are necessarily wrong.
I will gladly agree with Father David and join him in recommending Father Taft�s article on �Translating Liturgically�. This does not, of course, mean that I agree with everything in that piece, but the learned author makes some excellent points in an enjoyable presentation.

Regarding the issue of the offering of the Anaphora aloud, Father David attributes a small error to me. He writes that:
�Fr. Serge, noting that the Roman Church has been reading anaphoras aloud since 1970��.
I didn�t write that (the reference is to p. 244 of my book). Just for the record, the pronunciation of the Anaphora aloud and in the vernacular during the Roman Mass was formally authorized in the autumn of 1967, and was going on informally for a year or two before that authorization took effect.

Father David then quotes me as having written with reference to the pronunciation of the Anaphora aloud: �Has understanding notably increased? Has reverence grown?� But having quoted those two questions � which are surely of importance when the subject is the Anaphora � Father David makes no attempt to answer them. If he did not want to respond to those questions, why did he trouble to quote them? It is not self-evidently ridiculous to inquire, after four decades, what the fruits of a particular innovation have been.

Father David graciously acknowledges that Eastern Churches Journal has published an article of his and another article recommended by him in support of the practice of offering the Anaphora aloud. Since I am the Editor of Eastern Churches Journal , and have been since its inception, I thank Father David for the articles, and for the implied acknowledgement that I do not abuse my position to deny anyone who doesn�t agree with me the possibility of publishing articles in the Journal . Suppressing other points of view by �administrative measures� is not one of my usual faults.
Father David recommends Il movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine (Rome 2005). Father David�s Italian is better than mine; if he would care to translate the book into English I would be delighted to see it published and might be able to take practical steps to bring about that publication, though I obviously cannot make any promises about a book which I have not yet read. I shall be particularly interested to see the full text of the quote from the later Patriarch (and Saint) Tychon of Moscow. In any event, though, if Kyr Tychon�s opinion changed in the course of twenty years, that is not altogether unusual and demonstrates that this Confessor of the Faith was capable of thought.

The following sentence is difficult:
�Fr. Serge seems to lump together all the liturgical experiences of the Western Church and generalizes it to cover each specific practice.�
The only possible antecedent of �it� is �the Western Church� � and I am not at all sure how I have generalized the Western Church to cover each specific practice. I�m not even sure what such a use of words might mean. If, on the other hand, �it� is a typo for �them�, and the antecedent is �all the liturgical experiences of the Western Church� then the accusation is far too broad. It appears, rather, that Father David takes exception to my point that the experience of the Latin Church in the offering of the Anaphora aloud during the past forty years is an experience from which we can learn something. Why is that irrelevant? In the USA, Greek Catholics and Roman Catholics inhabit the same cultural milieu, and it is only too clear that most of our hierarchs and many of our clergy and faithful have somehow internalized the presuppositions of the Roman Catholics � the list to demonstrate this can be provided if anyone wants it, but it�s a very long list. So why is it foolish to reflect on that experience?

In discussing the question of the proclamation of the Anaphora aloud, Father David describes his position as follows:
�The role of the deacon in the Liturgy is to offer our petitions to the Lord. And this is important, for we must lay all our needs to God, who alone provides for our lives. The role of the people is to sing hymns, and the hymns we sing glorify God and remind us of the unity of our celebration with the angelic Liturgy in heaven. But the role of the priest is to do (liturgical actio) what our Lord commanded, �Do this in memory of me,� What the priest says is what the people should come to know, for it is the memory of the great deeds of salvation that God has done for us. It is the sacrifice, and the redemption and the deification. This is the core of what the Liturgy is about and why you need a priest to celebrate it.�

Father David�s position thus described certainly offers food for thought. But it may not be entirely adequate. The chanting of the petitions is by no means the extent of the Deacon�s r�le in the Liturgy � nor is it the most important part of the Deacon�s r�le in the Liturgy. To say that the Deacon offers our petitions to the Lord is questionable; I would prefer to say that the Deacon proclaims our petitions, that we �ratify� the individual petition with our response, and that the Bishop or Priest offers our petitions to the Lord.
Regarding the Deacon, Father Robert Taft in his book on the Great Entrance thirty-one years ago proposed that the first step in �a few modest changes� should be that
�Only the deacons should bear in the gifts. If there is no deacon then certainly at presbyteral concelebrations at least the main celebrant should not participate in the procession but, like the bishop, wait in the sanctuary to meet it on arrival.�
(Taft, Great Entrance , OCA Rome 1975, p. 427.) The draft does not offer this possibility � but suppresses the Plerotika and Aitesis after the Great Entrance, which could be taken to signify a willingness to reduce the r�le of the Deacons, but not to expand that r�le. [Some people have an aversion to litanies � I simply have an aversion to the extension of the word �litany� to certain elements of the liturgy which are more accurately described by other technical terms.]

�The role of the people is to sing hymns� ? Surely that is neither the earliest nor the most important r�le of the faithful at the Divine Liturgy! A Bishop or Priest is indispensable for the Divine Liturgy � but it remains true that we all are summoned �to offer the Holy Oblation in peace�. The Bishop or the Priest exhorts the faithful �Let us give thanks unto the Lord�, not �Let me give thanks unto the Lord�.
�But the role of the priest is to do (liturgical actio ) what our Lord commanded, �Do this in memory of me.� �
Not for a split second do I deny that the Bishop or Priest is utterly necessary for this purpose � but the actio is the actio of the Church. If we say that this is the Priest�s exclusive r�le, it is a very short distance to the aberrations of �private Masses�.

To support opposition to the silent offering of the Anaphora, Father David cites the author of the eleventh-century Protheoria: �the people ask what the aim of this practice is, adding that to know the prayers this way is like trying to know a garment from touching the fringes.� That author may have had a point, but after a thousand years the situation has changed. Literacy is far more wide-spread today than it was a thousand years ago. It is possible, even easy, to provide anyone with the complete text of the Divine Liturgy, including the Anaphora. The Protheoria demonstrates that the proposal to offer the Anaphora aloud is not new � and the history of the Church demonstrates that this proposal was not accepted. We will all agree that it is essential to teach the faithful what the Anaphora is, and in the process of such catechesis to take them through it, several times, phrase by phrase, so that they will actually know the Anaphora and have an authentic understanding of the actio. When that is achieved, the silent offering of the Anaphora will be no impediment to the understanding � and the gathered silence makes the actio more powerful, not weaker.
On that very issue, though, Chapter 11 of my book offers 50 references in footnotes. Father David only notices one of those references � the closing sentence of the chapter, which is a quote from Ecclesiastes 3: 1, 7a. This Father David calls �proof-textism�. [There is no such word, but never mind.] That Biblical quote is not there to prove anything, and I am not quite so foolish as to think that the Inspired Writer was referring to the Anaphora, of all things � I simply found that verse a suitable ending for the chapter. Of the remaining 49 footnotes in chapter 11, 13 are to Joseph Ratzinger (who is now Pope Benedict XVI); Father David pays no attention at all to these citations, which I have deliberately given at some length so that I cannot be accused of quoting Ratzinger out of context. Of the remaining 36 footnotes, 5 are to the work of Msgr. Klaus Gamber, one of the greatest liturgiologists of the later twentieth century, who paid close attention to the Eastern Liturgies and whom Ratzinger has frequently praised in the highest terms; 2 are to the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II, 2 are to the work of Father Robert Taft, 2 are to the Old-Ritualist service-book and practice (the latter on video-recording and therefore easily verifiable), 1 is to Pope John Paul II, 1 is to the Ordo Celebrationis , and so on (most of the others are simple explanatory notes expanding on the main text). Father David�s opposition to my view that the mandatory pronouncing of the Anaphora aloud always and everywhere is not necessary nor inevitably edifying. He is entitled to his opinion. But responding as if such references are not worth his attention does not strengthen his own credibility.
Father David accuses me of giving �a minimalistic interpretation� (on page 252 of my book) to the Instruction on Applying The Liturgical Prescriptions Of The Code Of Canons Of The Eastern [Catholic] Churches , Congregation for the Eastern Churches, 6 January 1966. � 54. Well, that document is certainly available to everyone; everyone is at complete liberty to read that paragraph and my interpretation of that paragraph and decide whether my interpretation is accurate. But in his very next sentence Father David writes that
�it is totally inconceivable that Rome would take a stronger stand on this now.�
Perhaps I am mistaken, but that appears to confirm my �minimalistic interpretation�.
Father David writes that he �would like to see the restoration of the antidoron�. Then what impedes that restoration, and why is it not found in the draft?
Father David writes that
�the two small synaptes between the antiphons, the petitions before the prayers of the faithful and the litany of Thanksgiving have been reduced, because they are, in fact, invitations of the deacon to prayer that were expanded when the prayers became silent.�
He offers no source or evidence for that assertion. He anticipates that I might respond by pointing out that the �let us pray to the Lord� precedes the prayer of the Little Entrance, even though that prayer is offered silently. If he were even more astute than he urges me to be, he would know that there was and is a custom in some places for the deacon � or even the priest � to offer the �let us pray to the Lord� aloud during the Little Entrance, even though the prayer remains in mystica. He would also know that the petition �Help us, save us, have mercy on us, and keep us, O God, by Thy grace� is often thought to be an abbreviation of the form �Help us, save us, raise us up, have mercy on us and keep us, O God, by Thy grace�, as it still is for the �Kneeling Vespers� of Pentecost. His assumption that the �litanies� were co-opted because of the silent reading of the prayers is too simplistic.

At least where my book is concerned, Father David practices selective reading. He complains that I am �inconsistent� because on p. 25 of my book I supposedly �minimize� the dispensations from the Ordo granted to Bishop Daniel in 1953 by pointing out [correctly] that they were given on a temporary basis. Then on p. 264, footnote 5, I made use of that dispensation to support a point. So I did. But if Father David had continued to read footnote 5 on page 264, he would have discovered that I also cite in support of my point the Church-Slavonic Recensio Rutena edition of the Archieraticon, Rome 1973 � which was not published on a temporary basis and which came twenty years after the temporary dispensation to Bishop Daniel.

Father David writes, with reference to chapter 6 of my book �I think in fairness he could have found more than two pages (131-133) of �notable improvements.�� Well, I have indeed found one more, and I regret having failed to include it: the 1964/1965 Pittsburgh-Passaic translation gives �The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise� as a translation of Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως. Where that English translation came from I have no idea. But in the draft which is the subject of my book, the translation reads �Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise�, which is a substantial improvement.

Father David appears to have misunderstood my reference to �the unfortunate history of the liturgical development of the jurisdiction which is now the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitanate in the USA� . My reference here is not to the history from 1970, but the history which I set forth in my second chapter � involving the loss of Bishop Daniel, Bishop Elko�s utter rejection of the whole liturgical project, and so on. Who could disagree that this was an unfortunate history? Was discharging the Rector of the seminary (because he maintained the Ruthenian Recension in the seminary chapel) as soon Bishop Daniel was out of the way an act of benevolence? Is the persistent mendacity an act of virtue? In an article published in 1999, quoted extensively in my book (pp. 41-45) and praised by Father David, Father Taft writes �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 is the result of the unfortunate history; it is the inevitable result of demanding obedience to disobedience.

Father David writes that I fall back �upon the �bridge theory� of ecumenism� . I�ve never heard of the bridge theory of ecumenism (does it resemble the branch theory?), so I can�t comment on it. But in support of this accusation Father David strangely asserts that I am discouraging organic development � which is the reverse of the truth, as anyone who knows my own work with Liturgy will realize. On pages 4-5 I quote Joseph Ratzinger on the positive value of organic development; on pages 5-6 I give two positive examples of such organic development. Does Father David dislike these examples, or the writing of Benedict XVI?

Father David uses his own rejection of this alleged �bridge theory� to justify his rejection of the call of Vatican II, the Code of Canons, the Instruction on the Liturgy, and numerous statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI reminding us that we must not differ liturgically from the Eastern Orthodox without necessity. There is certainly a wide range of varying �uses�, as we may term them, within Eastern Orthodoxy. But I doubt that the October 2004 draft corresponds in general to any of them, and I differ with Father David in his belief that a particular Greek-Catholic Metropolitanate is entitled to act unilaterally because the Orthodox will eventually �catch up�. Nothing I know of encourages that proposition.

In fairness to Father David I must add that while the version of his review that I first became acquainted with had no footnotes, the version which appears on his own web-site does have footnotes. They offer 8 references.

If this discussion is to continue � and Father David may prefer that it would not � it is necessary that the participants agree not to read personal attacks into what are not personal attacks (a scholarly disagreement is not a personal attack � asking someone to please provide an accessible source of reference is not the same thing as calling someone a bare-faced liar), to offer sources for controversial assertions, to assume that everyone is in good faith until or unless proven not to be, and so on. Meanwhile, I stand by my book, and again thank those who made that book possible.

Finally, I regret that this reply has taken me so long. I serve a growing Greek-Catholic parish in Dublin and I am simultaneously working on a serious study in the field of liturgiology, so time is necessarily limited.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Serge Keleher, 8/21 July 2001, Appearance of the Icon of the Holy Theotokos in Kazan

Just a note to thank the Administrator for allowing such a brilliant back and forth discussion on liturgiology to take place on the Forum!

Alex