www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy All is Quiet on the Eastern Front...

It is never too late to do the right thing. There is no such thing as momentum in human action. We can step back, stop, refrain from acting

I do not see that there is a clear issue of right and wrong with regard to promulgation of the liturgy, because the liturgy is a work in progress for all eternity. A chain of events is taking place that is likely to lead to promulgation, because of all the groundwork that was laid over many years by the committees and hierarchs involved. There has been a lengthy period of reflection about the new liturgy, and there has been a refraining from action already, and I doubt very much that parties who are not within the decision-making process, like most all of us who post here on the Forum, are going to change how it unfolds. (I am also probably in the minority here, in that I do not see a cause for alarm, because I see nothing that indicates heresy, apostasy, etc.) It will likely be over soon no matter how one sympathizes or not, and I will be glad for that.

lex orandi lex credendi

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The fine distinction that has been made between vertical and horizontal inclusive language and the claim that there is no cause for alarm because there is nothing to indicate heresy or apostacy is akin to saying this (I say this with all charity):

"Don't worry, we haven't lost the faith -- just our minds." That is, we are not rejecting the supernatural order, we are just rejecting the natural order. I ask the question, is such even possible?

The so called "inclusive language" issue has been one of the hottest topics in the modern univeristy and law schools for the last 15 years or more. It is one of the key issues of the intellectual elite of this country. It has been made to be such a volatile topic principally by those who reject our faith and more importantly who reject the natural order which God established from the beginning: "male and female He created them." {And yet St. Paul tells us that there is neither male nor female, we are all "sons" of God through faith. See Galatians ch.3. Is "sons" horizontal or vertical usage?)

Now the fact that the use of "inclusive" language has been welcomed into the ancient liturgy is cause for alarm because the liturgy has been changed to accomodate an agenda of the world. It should instead be the case, that we are formed by the ancient liturgy in order to transform the world to Christ.

Can that still happen? Sure. God will always have His way. But we do have a duty to cooperate with Him.

In short, the use of "inclusive" language is sending mixed messages. "Do we conform ourselves to the world or should the world be transformed by us?" St. Paul is quite clear:

How will the use of inclusive language renew our minds?


So here is a very practical question, when the liturgy is promulgated, do I have an obligation to leave "men" out of the Creed, when in fact I know the word "anthropos" is there?

In Christ and the Theotokos,
lm

Good point. I have already decided "they" can publish inclusive language, that doesn't mean I have to say it.

JMHO,
Cathy

I imagine there are still devout Byzantines who murmur the Filioque during the creed, too.
There will always be room for individual piety no matter what changes may occur.

You are correct in this.

But isn't the real problem that our leaders should be 'leading' us to our Eastern roots and also keep us from the errors of inclusive language. That is sad part of the whole situation, that there are people in the pews who appear to have more sensibility and Orthodoxy on these issues.

The flavor of the month really must be that hard to resist for some.

mc

Well, people are able to do some things no matter how wrong they are. Many of our people kneel on Sundays, for example, even though that is not our tradition and we're not supposed to kneel on Sundays. Of course there are many more and I don't think that I need to get into the errors of the Filioque when this board is replete with examples.

Maybe if there was some education and history taught to our people there wouldn't be so much individual piety and more appropiate practice would be occurring.

Who will lead us to this?

mc

When did this reflection occur?

Who was involved in this reflection?

What was the process for this reflection?

Who was in charge of this reflection?

I�ve never heard about it.

The priests of Passaic have not been given any official information about the Liturgy at all except faxed forms with directives for them to order copies of the new liturgy.

Even two of the three members of the Passaic Eparchial Liturgical Commission have not been given anything from official sources.

The closest thing anyone has to anything official is the draft text distributed to clergy a year ago at the presbyteral meetings. The clergy were not invited to reflect on anything. It was presented as if it were almost finalized.

Outside the official commissions who has been given a copy to reflect upon?

So what do you base your claim on?

Or are you just providing inaccurate information?

Oh John, John. Who is entitled to reflect, etc. on the proposed liturgy prior to promulgation? Why, those on the committees that are developing it, and their hierarchs, of course- not you or me, or anyone else, except Rome, of course. And that is basically the way is.

Ours is not a congregationalist church, where delegates get elected in a parish to go to regional meetings and make decisions about all sort of things supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, including electing bishops, changing liturgy texts, etc. But you MUST know that.

If you want grass roots participation in this decision-making process, you are in the wrong historic church, and wherever it is practiced things seem to go very wrong, IMHO, the Episcopalians, for example. Or do you see yourself as a customer in some sort of customer/supplier process? I hope not.

Surely this too shall pass.

Yes, most likely it will and I'm afraid a lot of people will pass out the doors never to return.

I think John Damascene is pointing out that many of the clergy who are on the front lines putting this New Liturgy into practice haven't even seen what will go to print. How can they even begin to defend it or support it, if they haven't seen it?

Based upon this stonewalling, it appears the Bishops do not care what their clergy think, and do not care about what the people in the pews need. If they did they would atleast present it to one of the participating parties for a critique, not a vote. It appears that it has not even been offered for review outside the circle of Bishop Pitaki's regime.

JMHO,
Cathy

I, personally, have heard from some Latins who are now Byzantine that they feel betrayed by the church for constructing something similiar to Vatican II.

SK

the only people who are in the wrong historic church are people like yourself who seem to believe that the church ended in Acts 28 and reappeared in the 20th century.

You might want to read these when you get a chance:

"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2:15).

"I commend you because you . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11:2).

Here's a primer for you on this subject and some insight into some others that you may or may not find acceptable. There are some in leadership positions that should take note of the following as well.

There's nothing historic about having feminized inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about having Latin confessionals in our churches.

There's nothing historic about being in and out of Liturgy in under 50 minutes.

There's nothing historic about not providing Matins to the faithful.

There's nothing historic about not providing Vespers to the faithful.

There's nothing historic about having Liturgy on Saturday evening and claiming that it fulfills your Sunday obligation when it is completely possbile to have Litrugy on Sunday morning.

There's nothing historic about kneeling on Sundays.

There's nothing historic about having stations of the cross and rosaries in our churches.

There's nothing historic about keeping the Royal Doors open for the entire Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about not informing the faithful and basically ignoring fasting periods besides the Great Fast.

There's nothing historic about having pews in our churches.

There's nothing historic about not doing proper prostrations when called for.

There's nothing historic about one verse antiphons.

There's nothing historic about having statues in some of our churches.

There's nothing historic about not asking for '..an angel of peace.......' and all of the other litanies that we ask for and reply 'Grant It O Lord' because they take too long.

There's nothing historic about having 'All Souls Saturday' as a panichida on Friday night after a chopped up Presantified Liturgy and claiming to have celebrated All Souls Saturday.

Why do you like to talk about 'historic' when you don't really mean it?

mc

Michael, you will have to get a hold of yourself. Quoting out of context is self-defeating. Your response come across to me as over the top, borders or being insulting, and doesn't hold water. You don't know me well enough to react the way you do, and owe me an apology.

Cathy, I believe that God is touching the hearts and minds of all those involved in this revised liturgy. Everything I have seen- the draft made available elsewhere, for example- tells me there is nothing to get upset about. No heresy, no apostasy, etc.

I also believe that most Americans think their opinions need to be counted too much, that they are overly fond of ideas such as personal empowerment, the value of opinion polls, and so forth. I remember how Pope John Paul II reminded America that the church's theology (teaching?, tradition?) is not subject to social whim. That one made a lot of people uncomfortable.

Being involved in prayer is more beneficial than worrying over changes that we have no control over. And this we have no control over. More humility would help us all at this point.

What a depressingly low standard. As long as it has no heresy or apostasy, etc., why worry?

As Mark Shea puts it, all of human history can be reduced to two statements: "What could it hurt?" and "How was I to know?"

I suspect we will end up in the second statement in spades, if the new liturgy is promulgated.

I also note that your post is not a defense of the changes. You argue that those who are upset by the changes are wrong to be upset, but do not give positive reasons for the changes. This is all "What could it hurt?" argument.