www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Protest Revision of Your Divine Liturgy !

It's equally sad that false and uncharitable statements such as those I referred to are made by the supporters under the guise of "satire" yet those in opposition needs to be "called out" or are "uncharitable". Those decrying the lack of charity seem to be able to resort to same. It's gone both ways.
FDD

"And on that basis I should think this is a good idea?"

Absolutley not. I am opposed to inclusive language, Fr Taft's support of it does not change my position.


"Don't you think that before our Church makes a move as important as this, we should all have the benefit of consulting Father Taft's position, and see this opinion in writing?"

Ideally, people would study the facts and seperate those from a scholar's leanings be they Fr. Robert's, Fr. Serge's, Fr. David's, Fr. Alexander's, Fr. Thomas', Archbishop Jospeh's or Pope Benedict's. Individual positions are irrelevant.

But that is beside the point. The Church is a hierarchy, not a democracy, which many here seem to forget. We don't get to review this and that and vote on what we want. The laity (and non-episcopal clerics) most certainly have the right to make their feelings and wishes known, they do not have a vote or veto however.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"It's equally sad that false and uncharitable statements such as those I referred to are made by the supporters under the guise of 'satire'"

It was Alexandr who started the satire with the "on Eagle's Wing" quip. Etnick is the one who announced he is leaving the BCC. Fr. Serge is the one who chosen to involve himself in this debate in our Metropolia. Trying to control the hierarchs is the wrong wording, but obviously Fr. Serge hopes his book has some effect on the hierarchs (or the priests to whom it was sent) who can promulgate the new liturgy.

I would also state that I ahve yet to see anyone other than Fr. Dave state he is a supporter of the revisions. I have seen a few who have said lets wait and see and this won't be the end of the world. that is a far cry from being a supporter. But many of the opponents of the revision identify anyone who does not share their opinion as a supporter of the revision and deride and belittle them as Cathy and Alexandr did.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Again I'll point to the derision of those who are not favorable to the revision above, and I'll stick to my observation that the "uncharitable" has ebbed and flowed both ways per my previous post.
FDD

Uncharitable, unschmaritable.

I went back and re-read Cathy and Alexandr's posts, and I don't find them mean.

What would a mean post be like? "Your mama wears combat boots!" I think that would be mean.

A vigorous disagreement, and the occasional expressed frustrations that go along with our love for the liturgy, are _not_ mean.

Let's be grownups and realize that argument in the search for truth is a contact sport, and let's not get our feelings hurt.

Dear Deacon Lance,

On this we are in absolute agreement. Traditionally speaking, the bishops are the guardians of our tradition, and should be always calling us to be faithful to it! And we certainly don't get a vote about that.

However, what is an ordinary Byzantine Catholic in the pews supposed to do, when the Bishops (and the committees they appoint) seem ready to abandon the tradition?

I heard that a bishop has said he "had to" promulgate the Liturgy! Astounding! His excuse was that the committee had done all its work, and a bishop didn't have the right to veto it, in fact he was only going to sign the Revised Liturgy (which he didn't like) because he had to.

So what does that do to the idea that we're a hierarchy, and should rely on our bishops to guard the tradition?

Nick

Father Deacon Lance accurately states that there have been uncharitable posts on the side of those who support the traditional Liturgy.

Father Deacon Lance should also have been balanced enough to also state that there have been uncharitable posts on the side of those who support revising the Liturgy (or at least think it wrong to question those proposing the revision).

Steve P and Jim from Arizona seem to define uncharitableness as any opinion that differs from theirs.

Jeff has been uncharitable at times, but at least he has spoken from conviction.

Theist Gal has been uncharitable in putting down those discussing the revisions, making specific negative comments about those who oppose the revisions and then admitting that she has not bothered to even read anything about the revisions.

Joe Thur repeatedly made specific and false accusations against clergy who did not agree with his opinion (assuming malicious intent, questioning everything and offering nothing).

Father David (who has not posted recently) has been uncharitable in his non-responses to real questions and his emotional declaration of �war� when it would be better to offer good scholarship.

Even Father Deacon Lance himself has been uncharitable in his postings. He surely remembers a time earlier in the year when he repeatedly accused me of being disloyal merely because I argue for embracing our tradition and against something that is still a proposal (and in no way official). Even in this thread his posts about Father Serge are false and misleading (Father Serge did his scholarly review at the request of our own Ruthenian clergy � he certainly did not choose �to involve himself in this debate�).

So I remind everyone that the lapses of charity do occur on both sides.

John,

Perhaps I am biased, but as I am not on either side in this debate I don't think I am. From my view, lately the anti-revisionists have been very uncharitable as witnessed in this recent thread. Uncharitableness in the past on the part of their opponents does not excuse their posts today.

As to Fr. Serge, did the Ruthenian clergy twist Fr. Serge's arm till he promised to right his critique? He could have refused. He chose to involve himself, to state so is neither false nor uncharitable. Now who is being uncharitable?

If in the past I have been uncharitable to you I ask for forgiveness and will endevor to remain charitable in my posts as should we all.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

you know as well as I that Aleksandr wasn't being uncharitable or false in the Eagles Wings post. He was simply demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. The fact that you've resorted to screaming 'uncharitable' and 'false' in a crowded room shows that what he said has a lot of merit.

It is ashame that Etnick is leaving our church, but by bringing this up strays from the issue at hand which is the revisionist liturgy. If Etnick says the sky is blue are we all to question that the sky is blue now because he is leaving? Even if he was joining the Hare Krishnas, if his statements have truth then they have truth.

The Admin already stated that Fr. Serge didn't just insert himself into this, and furthermore what he says is what should be debated and not what jurisdiction he is under, maybe your not doing this, but when you resort to saying that he is out of jurisdiction you are making many believe that you have run out of arguments to make and end up conceding that Fr. Serge is correct.


Father Deacon Lance, plain and simple, there are some important questions that should be asked here.

Why only one verse antiphons? What's the harm in putting in at least three if not more.

Why cut out praying for 'an angel of peace' and all of the other 'Podaj Hospodi' petitions?

Why don't we listen to JPII and Pope Benedict's words to go back to our Orthodox Traditions?

Why are we moving farther away from our Greek Catholic Brethern with this translation?

Why are we obsessed with being in and out of church in under an hour?

Why don't we have complete restoration in all of our churches of Vespers and Matins?

I don't see anything uncharitable about asking these and many other questions. Most of us are adults and over 21. Let's have an open and honest discussion.

I'm not going to resort to screaming 'uncharitable' and 'false', but I will say that someone like J. Michael Thompson has given Philadelphia Lawyer like answers on here. When he says that the liturgy posted on here wasn't (and I'm paraphrasing) the liturgy that will be promulgated, well is that false? Answer: No. But he knew that that was the liturgy that was recorded for distribution and contained many parts of what will be promulgated. Once real quesoitns came out, he disappeared. Now he's under no obligation technically to answer us on here, but does he think that many of us aren't on to his game?

Like the Admin wrote, Father David has called this open warfare when all this has been is a discussion of the revision being put forward. That's not charitable is it?

Father David has called us all something along the lines of 'Liturgical Fundamentalists'. Well come to think of it never mind that one, (and I'm only speaking for myself) that's a compliment.

mc

Dear Father Deacon,
I am not seriously angry at you nor offended by you - we simply happen to disagree about part of the matter under discussion. If you wish to be forgiven for that, you are forgiven, but my own view is that intelligent, careful disagreement is an important contribution to the scholarly process.

Please allow me to clarify a few points that you've raised regarding my involvement in the controversy.

As I said in the first chapter of my book, the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not exist in solitary, splendid isolation; what it does in matters liturgical is the legitimate concern of all of us, Orthodox and Catholic, who share the Byzantine liturgical heritage - and it is correct to broaden this further and say that this is the heritage of the entire Church. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, but I can't quite grasp what is insulting about it. The Pittsburgh Metropolia shares in a proud heritage; this is nothing to be ashamed of. If that means, as I maintain, that Pittsburgh does have an obligation to take into account those who are not part of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, that also is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. If, as in this instance, someone is suggesting the Pittsburgh is not entirely living up to that heritage, well if the suggestion is true, the situation should be corrected; if the suggestion is false, it's not worth worrying about it.

Did I simply wake up one morning and, having nothing better to do, decide to write a criticism of a liturgical draft from Pittsburgh? Of course not. Before I could even consider such a matter, I would have had to be in possession of that draft - it was sent to me by some clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia with an urgent request for help. My first response was to suggest that these priests and deacons should write a criticism of the draft. This produced a redoubled importuning from friends whom I value and respect, urging me to act, because certain methods were being used to stifle any dissent from the proposal. When I replied that surely this assertion was exaggerated, specific examples were offered, and I was reminded of what I know to have happened in the recent past.

Finally I was persuaded that the clergy who were in touch with me were dismayed for objective reasons, and that an honest effort at scholarship might help. Several benefactors, all of whom are in fact members of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh, paid for the printing of the book and the posting of it as a gift to the bishops and priests (nobody paid me, incidentally, nor did I suggest that anyone should pay me).

Liturgy, as I point out in the book, is an emotional topic and often raises hackles, so it's best to lay a foundation based on facts and reliable sources, which is what I tried to do. Whether I succeeded in that effort is not for me to judge.

As to the argument that the Church is not a democracy and therefore we must all swallow anything that comes from Authority - to say the least, that is oversimplified. We certainly have the right to voice our concerns, and where something may be going on that is seriously alarming, we are not forbidden to take prudent action.

That same simplistic argument was used to justify the imposition of the Missal of Pope Paul VI despite opposition. Most of us are probably aware that the attempt to eradicate the older form of the Roman Mass has not succeeded. I venture to predict that an attempt to eradicate the "normal" form of the Divine Liturg will not succeed either.

As to why Father Taft favors "gender-inclusive" language (and indeed he does), the best way to find out is to read what he has written and what he said at the 1988 Stamford Symposium and then ask Father Taft if one wants further elucidation of his thought. Obviously, he and I disagree on that particular point. Despite this disagreement, we remain good friends - which says much about the kindness of Father Taft, for whose scholarship I have not only the highest respect, but also the deepest gratitude. Right now, he is in need of our prayers that his recovery from recent surgery should continue and he should be restored to complete health.

Satire, incidentally, is not necessarily uncharitable, although it can be uncharitable and is a bit risky when used over the Internet, which does not allow for tones of voice, facial expressions, and so on. We should all of us try to avoid hurting people personally, and the consideration that I may very well not know that someone else feels particularly vulnerable in this or that area of discussion should cause me to be more cautious than I sometimes am.

Nonetheless, satire and scholarship are not incompatible, as anyone who has read Father Taft's work with attention may have noticed!

Still, I have seldom felt personally offended during the course of this whole discussion (which I shall date, somewhat arbitrarily, as beginning with the publication of my book - not humble of me, but that surely marks the beginning of my own involvement).

May the Great Pumpkin find every pumpkin patch sincere, and leave us all pie-eyed!

Father Serge

If Theist Gal feels that I spoke down to her, then I offer her my apologies, as that was not my intent. I was basing my comments on her comment "Do any of these things actually change church doctrine?" Allow me to post some excerpts from Father Paul Kramer, a Roman Catholic, at the Fatima Peace Conference 2001.

The error, all too often, is to think of apostolic tradition in terms of dogma and to regard faith and morals and everything else as simply disciplinary matters that may be changed, according to the will of the legislator, whether he be bishop, or whether he be Pope.
When St. Paul speaks of tradition he is not speaking merely of dogma. In 2 Thessalonians St. Paul says, �Hold fast to the traditions that you have received from us, whether by word or by letter.� There we have both the oral tradition and the written tradition. But he is not only referring to teaching. He himself makes this clear with one of the most famous expressions coming out of the New Testament. St. Paul says, �I have handed over that which I received.� He then explains what it is that he has received. What he describes is the Holy Mass. That the Lord, before He suffered, took bread saying, �This is My Body which is given up for you. This is the chalice of My Blood,� etc. So when St. Paul says �hold fast to the traditions� and �I have handed over that which I have received,� he refers specifically to the liturgy. There is so little understanding concerning the doctrine about liturgy in the Church that it has become almost entirely obscured. In the Summa of St. Thomas you find next to nothing about liturgy. The reason for this is quite obvious if you know the history of doctrinal development. When a point becomes controversial, that is when the theologians do a great deal of writing and speaking on that topic. But if a doctrine is not questioned, not much is said about it.
The Christological controversies of the early ages and the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation � in what manner is there the Real Presence of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine � provoked a great deal of writing.
The one thing that was the least questioned was the doctrine of liturgy, because it was so well and universally understood. The liturgy was a sacred patrimony handed down from generation to generation in the Church.
The process of handing down is what we call tradition. Tradition, having been established, becomes custom. The liturgy grows gradually, as does a human being, in a natural organic way until it reaches its adulthood.
Canon 27 of the New Code of Canon Law explains that custom is the best interpreter of the laws. So when we look at liturgical law in the spirit of canonical tradition, that is to say, authentically understand the law as it was meant to be understood, then it must be understood according to that tradition that has established the ecclesiastical and liturgical customs. This is how important custom is in determining the sense, the meaning, of law.
Among the ancient Fathers we have St. John Chrysostom, who says it in one line: �Is it tradition? Ask no more.�
Among the medieval Doctors we find not too many pronouncements, but what we find is unanimously taught by such as St. Peter Damien and others who insist that you must not change the landmarks. What has been handed down is not to be altered. So much so that even if the Pope should make a change in the universal customs of the Church, he should not be followed. A book dealing specifically with custom, a theological treatise written by Pope Innocent III, says if the Pope makes changes in the universal customs of the Church, he is not to be followed.

So when one defends the Faith and stands up for Tradition, as Cathy and others have done, then they are accused of being uncharitable? I say the very Angels in Heaven rejoice over such "uncharitableness". In St Paul's words �I have handed over that which I received�, let me ask the revisionists if THEY wil be handing over to their children " that which they have recieved".

Alexandr

Father Deacon Lance,

You seem to have ignored the examples I have listed (all of which occurred in the past week). (Why did you not complain about uncharitable posts by those who support the Revisions?) A better response is simply for you to say that uncharitableness on one side never justifies it on the other.

What is this dislike for Father Serge? My guess is that he knew nothing of the revision of the Liturgy until he received a request from our clergy to review it. (I am sure he will tell us!)

Is it really charitable to repeatedly attack someone who has responded to an invitation from our own clergy and spent hundreds of hours in scholarly research and writing to prepare such a great gift as he has given to us? It seems to me that the real uncharity is not to consider the work of a recognized liturgical scholar and give it a real hearing.

Then there is this idea that those outside our Ruthenian Church do not have a voice. There are numerous commentaries of the Vatican II reforms of the Mass in the Latin Church written by Orthodox scholars. Do you actually believe that their scholarship was a decision to involve themselves in decisions about the Liturgy of the Latin Church? I hope not! I hope that our brethren in other Churches (Byzantine and Latin, Orthodox and Catholic) would care about us enough to praise what we are doing (if they think it correct) or to tell us if they believe us to be on the wrong path (if they believe it incorrect).

John

"Truth is truth. One cannot have an opinion on truth"
UNKNOWN

Alexandr

Just an aside, since I don't know if I will post in this thread otherwise:

Father David (twice, I believe) referred to a sense among the hierarchs and priests that they needed to be able to have a text of the Liturgy that COULD be celebrated in "about an hour" if optional texts were not taken - although he repeatedly deplored that kind of minimalism attitude.

Yet almost all the posts from those who object to the changes say "UNDER an hour" - I have seen this many times.

Can anyone produce a quote from Father David or anyone else on the Liturgical Commission that ever mentions celebrating the Divine Liturgy in under an hour? Or is this basically an exaggeration for rhetorical effect?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

John,

"Why did you not complain about uncharitable posts by those who support the Revisions?"

I have been busy with a new baby, Cub Scouts, ECF, and youth group among other things so my particiaption here of late has been less than it has been. Today's thread is my most involvement in a month. But you are correct all involved have been uncharitable and I agian ask forgiveness for my own.

However I must ask how does saying Fr. Serge chose to involve himself imply dislike of him? In fact, for person I have never met I like him just fine and if he is ever in Pittsburgh will break bread with him and buy him a Guinness. I have no problem with Fr. Serge offering his scholarly opinion and having his ideas heard. My post refers to the fact that Fr. Serge got involved and he is now going to take both praise and heat (like Steve's) for this involvement. It is to be expected that is all.

Fr. Deacon Lance