www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A Discussion with Father David about Reform

Originally written by P-A.

Until now, I took such remarks rhetorical, and simple obstructionism; just a tactic for opponents to take some molehill and make it into an embarrasing mountain, just as in efforts to get the notes of the Clinton health care meetings, or Cheney's energy policy meetings.

But the simple answer is that it is naive to expect - without some cooperative effort to defend it, or without patiently awaiting the slow verdict of history - that truth will prevail over politics and willfulness in any scant analysis.

Your original call for a conference was, IMO, not very well thought out:
Perhaps it would be good to start with developing real expertise in Greek and Slavonic. Then we could develop criteria and norms of translation accuracy, then we could establish the degree to which the translation of 1965 sets a binding precedent to be overturned only if the accuracy is improved within some, selected measure. The we should summarize the way in which these issues were treated in all of the dozen of so other translations of the DL into English that we will look at. And perhaps also for other languages (French and German were very illuminating to me on the matter of "Holy things..."). We will certainly need to become experts in liturgical theology to guard against unintended theological errors that might be read into the text. We will have to establish some sort of reasonable person test to discern whether any given heterodox interpretation - involving for example the administrator's cat - has any genuine likelihood of being read into the text. Then we might consider the pastoral situation as it exists throughout the Archeparchy and develop an impact statement for each of the various changes proposed.

We could still probably make vespers, and if we convened after Sunday liturgy, we could no doubt have time to read, evaluate, and reconsider acceptance or rejection of your thesis.

Having said this, I will repeat what I have said before: The bishops and IELC and others indeed have their work cut out for them in disseminatng and discussing their work. Especially in the face of organized, even secret, opponents. There should be workshops for teaching, for dissemination. I suspect there will be. But somehow I get the idea that the proposed conference has a rather different, but thus far hidden, agenda.
The water there is superb.

MC wrote:
Then let me help you succeed in seeing, MC. The criterion of improved accuracy is not, nor was it ever stated to be, the sole determining factor to be used in making a translation.

Although improved accuracy should be the goal, I understand that in your world 'pastoral sensitivity' overrides all and is especially helpful to make sure that restorations either don't happen or take forever and a day. Then you can always say that you're in favor of restorations but don't want to be insensitive so let's not do them.

Back to the Orthodox discussion, pastoral sensitivy in this example boils down to some of our people holding grudges for 70 years while other Greek Catholics have gotten over it and moved on.

mc

Dear DJS,

This is the thinking that has me depressed. Clericalism, I say!

Read again what you wrote, and see what it says about the laity:

If only we were all smart enough! Perhaps, as you say, my original post wasn't well thought out, but my position on this is that some sort of consultation or even openness before promulgation would do much to aid the reception of the new translation, and might even help the new translation, since I understand it is still being revised.

Clericalism? What was said in the quote about clergy or laity?

I don't think for a minute that the expertise and the time required to do what you suggested requires Holy Orders. (The liturgy and music commision does inclue laity). But it does so happen that if one wants expertise in the areas noted, then a good place to start looking is our clergy. And it does happen that expertise and time are required.

I apologize if I made you feel like an idiot. The fact is, you know that I do expect you to understand.

And I would like to understand this: just what do you want to happen at this conference, and what are your expectations about its impact. In particular, given the short time frame, what can be accomplished?

Dear djs,

I apologize if I misread you. I took the quote to be ironic, pointing out all the qualifications that the attendees at the conference would lack.

I edited my post, by the way, removing the bits about offense. Nobody cares whether I take offense, and I shouldn't care either. The issue is the liturgy and the good of the Church.

I have no world, MC.
No one asked me; no one tried me.
And this idea is not original to me; it comes from the very same documents that the administrator likes to quote.
For some perrhaps, but for most it's probably more subtle; a terrible distraction just when you are trying to lay aside all earthly cares.
That is great for them; I regret that we are perhaps a little slower.

That would really depend on who came. And what the scope of the conference was. Workshops to learn about what ideas informed the work of the IELC and the decision made and alternative rejected by the bishops seems feasible. A decision making body that will give a up/down decision, probably not, IMO.

I am certain that that is not true.

Dear djs,

On the scope of the conference, I think what you wrote

would be good. I certainly don't think it would be a decision-making body. However, I think my vision is that it would be more than merely informative, but not quite "decisionative." Perhaps it would be best described as advisory or consultative. The bishops could use such a conference or conferences as ways to get a better picture of what is going on, of what the concerns are, and of what changes may be hidden time bombs.

If it were one conference, the issues would have to be limited, probably to the four or five that have generated the most angst.

A note about the tone of such a conference: I know the bishops are the ones with the responsibility and the grace of episcopal ordination. They will bind and loose, and I will obey. But it might be a good pastoral policy to go into such a conference with the possibility that some things might be adjusted. Even if none of them are, it would soften hearts. "Bishop _____ didn't do what I hoped he would do, but at least he listened! God grant him many years!"

Pseudo-Athanasius has asked "What is the positive benefit to the faithful of mandating that the antiphons only be one verse each?" He remarks that he has asked this question several times, but it must be getting lost.

He has indeed asked this question several times; I've not responded to it previously since I advocate and practice no such thing and I naively thought that those who do advocate and practice such drastic reductionism should defend their own position. But Pseudo-Athanasius is at least entitled to an answer, so I'll try, although I am not at my best trying to explain the liturgical aberrations of others.

Reducing the Antiphons to almost nothing can be found in some Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA, so those who wish to do the same among the Greek-Catholics can point to Orthodox who do it. To this I would respond that it is a poor sort of ecumenism which consists of ratifying each other's abuses.

The practice, regardless of who is doing it, reflects a fixation on time (or to quote the stated policy of two Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA forty years ago "The Mass should begin at 11 and end at 12, including a 5-minute sermon").

This whole attituded is of no benefit to the faithful whatever - it is harmful to the faithful. First, it deprives the faithful of the opportunity to learn the Scriptural texts (the Psalms and the Beatitudes) of the Antiphons. Equally (or worse) it teaches the faithful that we can reduce our divine worship to sixty minutes or less once a week (at most) and consider ourselves to have given God what is due him, and nourished our own souls with all that is necessary. The result might well be called "spiritual anorexia".

Fr. Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

I learn something every time you post.

"The practice, regardless of who is doing it, reflects a fixation on time (or to quote the stated policy of two Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA forty years ago "The Mass should begin at 11 and end at 12, including a 5-minute sermon")."

I do wish some of the Orthodox polemicists would stop lecturing us on how perfectly and consistently they follow Orthodoxy and, unlike the "Uniates" who deviate from it on the basis of Roman domination or secular pressure. The next time I'm confronted by an idealistic Orthodox polemicist I shall "gently" pull out this quote. Do you have a source?

CDL

The source, I regret to say, is the late thrice-blessed Metropolitan Antony (Bashir). Metropolitan Antony accomplished much good, but he was far too enthralled by the "practicality" of America.

Fr. Serge

This thread is wandering, like any good conversation.

Fr. Serge and Dan/Carson/whatever your first name is: I stopped by to visit a local Greek Orthodox church here in Chicago, and started talking to one of the parish secretaries. She bragged about the liturgies and how long they were, too long for Roman Catholics. "How long are they?" I asked. "Oh, they're long. At least forty-five minutes!"

Pseudo-Athanasius,

That secretary was WAY off! :rolleyes:

Infact, my husband and I have a standing joke. We married young, and at the time, he was much more liturgically versed and immersed in Orthodoxy than I was.

So, when I would ask how long a particular service was, he would, depending on the service, respond "short". I then came to realize that 'short' NEVER, EVER meant under an hour in ANY Greek Orthodox service ANYWHERE! So, twenty-five years later, whenever he says let's go to such and such service, it will be a short one, I just laugh and say 'sure'.

(Much to my dismay actually, as I happen to like a good, short, Latin Mass once in a while to reinvigorate my day spiritually without tiring me physically).

In Christ,
Alice

I have a couple of thoughts that I thought I might share.

One, it seems a little hard for me to believe there is a 45 minute liturgy being performed at a GOA parish. The reason I say that is it seems like to me the priest would have to skip things, chant incredibly quickly and have almost no communicants in order to get through the whole thing. It is possible that�s the case, it just seems unlikely to me. Every Greek Orthodox parish I have ever been to has had a liturgy that averages somewhere between and hour and 45 minutes and two hours. In my experience a one hour service of Orthros preceding the liturgy is also the norm. I would think Alice, Zenovia or Fr. Anthony would probably know for sure though whether or not this does occur. [looks like she beat me!]

The quote about Metropolitan Anthony does not surprise me. It was a different era, just like the episcopate of Bishop Elko was a different one for the BCC. I don�t see how dredging up either could be a basis to prove anything to one side or the other. I will say, and this again is from experience, that you will find two distinct atmospheres in Antiochian parishes representing both the old order and the new.

Andrew