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

The following is reposted from page 9 of the thread �Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy � 1� in the books forum. I am reposting here in the �Revised Divine Liturgy� forum for two reasons: 1) it is a conversation that I believe is important to our Church and 2) since it is not directly about Father Serge�s book it really doesn�t belong in that thread.

--Begin Repost from Father David --

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

--End Repost from Father David --

I agree with Father David that sometimes these discussions go round in circles. But repetition can sometimes be very useful (we see this with the repetition of litanies in the Liturgy). Father David�s post packs a good deal of information and opinion in his six points. Much of it is demonstrably wrong. I think it best to break each point down to best focus my comments.

Actually, they are quite a bit more than just my opinions.

Father David wrote: an individual church cannot publish a liturgical book

Here in the United States we have a multiplication of both eparchies and church <sui iuris> that do use the same language (English); are located within the same territory (there are even parishes almost next door to one another). This requires that the all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension in the English speaking world prepare and authorize standard translations of all the liturgical texts of the Ruthenian recension.

I ask our Council of Hierarchs to work with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension to work together to prepare a single, normative translation of all of our liturgical texts. I further call upon our Council of Hierarchs to appeal to Rome to insist that all of the Catholic Churches of the Ruthenian recension cooperate. We already know that at least two bishops of Orthodox Churches that are part of the Ruthenian recension are interested in such a project.

I understand that this is a major task, and that until such a time we will need to keep producing our own books. But let these books be as faithful to our tradition as is possible so that they might be used by everyone and, in that way, contribute to the future common translation.

Father David wrote: unless they are in literal conformity with the Ruthenian liturgical books of 1941-1973

In order to have an accurate observance of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy we need to have accurate translations of the texts of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgical Books � not something that is different. The official Liturgical Books of the Ruthenian Recension are those published between 1941 and 1973. The Bishops of all the Churches which are part of the Ruthenian recension are responsible for the faithful protection and accurate observance of the Liturgy which we hold in common. Here in the United States this includes the responsibility to provide the Church with editions in English that are as literally faithful to the original texts as is possible.

Have we taken into account the practice of the Orthodox? Clearly we have not. No other Byzantine Catholic Church let alone Byzantine Orthodox Church is mandating similar revisions of the Divine Liturgy.

Do we know the tradition we share with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)? No, we do not. We cannot know something we have not lived.

Do we respect the tradition we share with our fellow Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)? No, we do not. We cannot respect something we refuse to know.

Does this proposed reform take us closer to the customs of the Orthodox than do the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension? No, it does not. In fact, this proposed revision takes us away from not only our brethren in the Orthodox Churches it takes us further away from our brethren in the Catholic Byzantine Churches!

The only way to avoid any unnecessary differentiation between the liturgical books of the Ruthenian Catholic Churches and the Ruthenian Orthodox Churches is to keep the editions produced for the Ruthenian recession by Rome from 1941-1973 as normative. English language editions of these books must be in literal conformity (as literally faithful as is possible in quality English). Books that are not literally faithful to the official standard (i.e., the proposed Revised Liturgy) create differentiation not only between the Ruthenian Catholic Churches and the Ruthenian Orthodox Churches but also between the different Catholic Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension.

Father David wrote: that changes cannot be introduced except by unanimous consent

Admitting organic change must be done while keeping in mind the primary need to foster the mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians. For us, this is especially both our relationship with other Catholic Ruthenian Churches as well as our relationship with the Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. Unanimous consent might not be possible between us and all of the Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. But is certainly possible between us and the other Catholic Ruthenian Churches. And if we simply wait until the Orthodox Churches adjust their books and then adjust ours we can have both organic progress and stay current with Orthodoxy.

We must remember that organic change occurs over time and is led by the Spirit. It cannot be forced or mandated. The new custom of reading of the Resurrection Gospel at the doors of the Church at Pascha Matins is an example of organic progress among both the Catholic and Orthodox Ruthenian Churches. It is spreading rapidly. When this custom has spread to the point that it is the majority custom among both Catholic and Orthodox Ruthenians it would be legitimate for the bishops of the Ruthenian recension to agree unanimously to officially add it to the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension.

Unanimous consent among all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension is certainly possible. It is just that it is not as quick and efficient as we impatient Americans would like.

Father David wrote: 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.

One can look at the quick spread of the use of modern languages in the Divine Services as an example of organic progress. Here in America we can see how the use of English in the Divine Services has grown to be normative for most Churches. Most of the switch from Church Slavonic to English occurred in less than two generations! We see the switch from Greek to English in Greek parishes making rapid progress in the past 20 years. It is now more common to hear English than it is to hear Church Slavonic or Greek. [We can also treat the adoption of languages like Ukrainian here in North America as an organic development, though it is probably temporary in nature and will likely be gone in a few generations.]

The issue of language in the Greek and Russian Churches is not one where they refuse to use the vernacular. These Churches consider �Liturgical Greek� and Church Slavonic to be vernacular languages. I do not know either fluently but those who do tell me that a reasonable comparison to modern speakers is the English of the King James Bible times two for Church Slavonic (twice as antiquated) and times three for Liturgical Greek. A friend from Russia assures me that the people who fill the Churches there can understand the Divine Services. My maternal grandmother spoke �Po-Nashemu�, Russian, Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian and English. My mother remembers her mom telling her that she understood the texts of the liturgy, but just not every word. [Perhaps Chaucer would be a better comparison here than the King James Version of the Bible?]

We can also consider the continued use of the King James Version of the Bible by many Protestants as almost the equivalent of the use of Elizabethan English by some Byzantine Churches. The KJV and the Elizabethan style of English are not as antiquated as Church Slavonic or Liturgical Greek but I think the comparison is not an unfair one.

Father David wrote: The proposed books were in fact permitted by the Oriental Congregation (which is a fact, whether the Administrator wishes to admit it or not),

My only comments on this letter have been and continue to be that it holds no authority until made public (which is typical of Vatican decrees) and that Father David and others should not attempt to appeal to the permission letter until they can legitimately do so.

Myself, I cannot wait to see a copy of this once the bishops make it public (should they decide to claim Vatican approval for this Revision). If indeed it does direct things (like inclusive language) I already have bets for dinner with two separate friends that the letter was written by Father Robert Taft, SJ. Father Taft openly supported the use of inclusive language of the type used in the Revised Liturgy. Surely the date of the letter is before Liturgiam Authenticam was issued and put an end to the debate in the Catholic Church (at least for the current generation).[/i]

Father David wrote: and conform to the Ruthenian Recension in spirit and allow for some organic development.

Conformity to the Ruthenian recension �in spirit� is not conformance to the Ruthenian recension. Those who support a return to the 1905 Liturgicon also claim they are supporting the spirit of the Ruthenian recension. Claims of conformance �in spirit� are by definition extremely subjective. They cannot be measured. Claims of conformity �in spirit� are made only because the change cannot be objectively justified. Conformity �in spirit� - like �the spirit of the age� - changes with each generation. Such changes must be adamantly opposed and must not be allowed to succeed.

As I noted in previous discussions, our Church is not at the point where it can document any organic development as part of the official Liturgy. [I will demonstrate later that the proposed changes do not qualify as �organic�.]

It is clear that the first requirement of liturgical renewal in the Ruthenian Church is to rediscover our liturgical tradition and be faithful to it. This means finally implementing and living our Liturgy as directed by the Ordo Celebrationis and as given in all the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension (published from 1941-1973).

We must implement and faithfully live our Ruthenian recension in the fullest way possible before even considering an update. We have not yet begun this process. Indeed, we cannot begin it until we have literally faithful editions of all of our liturgical books in English.

Rediscovering and living our tradition MUST precede updating.

Father David wrote: The Administrator is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension.

On this I fully agree! I will also point out that Father David is not the liturgical legislator for the Ruthenian recension. Nor is any single member of any of the eparchial or inter-eparchial liturgical commissions. Nor is any liturgical commission of our Church or any other Church within the Ruthenian recension. Nor is any individual bishop or even the Council of Hierarchs of the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. The liturgical legislators of the Ruthenian recension are, as a minimum, all those Catholic bishops that make up the Ruthenian recension (i.e., Rusin, Ukrainian, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and etc.). In full they are all these plus all the bishops of the Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension. Our Council of Hierarchs has the authority to publish translations (working in concert with other in our recension). They also appear to have the authority to publish translations that would qualify as temporary in nature until common translations can be prepared. They have the authority to issue liturgical directives. They do not have the authority to alter the Liturgicon.

Father David wrote: His "principles" are designed to maintain the status quo�

Here I am confused and ask Father David to explain. I have been consistent in my position that our bishops finally promulgate the Ordo and the 1942 Liturgy (as given in the 1964/1965 English edition). My meager efforts in providing books for our parishes to use during the past 25 years supports my position here. Father David�s claim here is demonstrably false. An accusation that I support the �status quo� is unsupportable unless one defines the �status quo� as the official 1942 Ruthenian recension.

Father David wrote: and, of course, would continue to permit priests to do what they want for their parishes.

Here again I am confused and ask Father David to explain. I have been consistent in advocating that the Council of Hierarchs finally implement the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and the Ordo Celebrationis as normative for our Church. I have also been clear in stating that mandating the 1942 Liturgy won�t mean that all of our priests embrace it. The effort will need to include education and example, beginning with that by our bishops and at the seminary. While there are surely a number of older clergy who will never adopt anything different than what they are doing now, it should be possible to get 80% of our parishes close to the official standard about 10 years. The best way to do this (to do anything, really) is to demonstrate how spirit-filled and dynamic the Liturgy can be. This generates the �we want this at our parish how can we get it� attitude that leads to success.

If anything will lead to a continued �status quo� (meaning as it is now in many parishes) the implementation of the Revised Liturgy will. Here in Passaic, which has had most of the rubrics of the Revised Liturgy for the past decade (with a few �Borsukisms� thrown in) most of the parishes only follow the revised rubrics closely when the bishop is actually present. The revisions have met with opposition almost everywhere. Some priests take only some of the new rubrics. Others have made no changes at all. The Revised Liturgy has only been successful in uniting both Vostochnicks and Latinizers together in opposition to the changes. Implementation of the Revised Liturgy at this point will only leave us with two sets of rubrics and translations from this point forward and disunity within our Church. In a sense we will become like the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States, which appears to have four authorized English translations (and lets not forget the UC parishes that still use our 1964/1965 Pittsburgh edition).

In truth, this whole plan to revise the Liturgy is nothing more than Father David and a few of his fellow reformers doing �what they want� with the Divine Liturgy.

One does not make unnecessary changes to texts because one respects the people who have memorized those texts over a lifetime of prayer. The text of the Lord�s Prayer is left alone in almost all of the Catholic Churches using English because it has been memorized for generations. This text has become one with the people. Father Serge has pointed out several inaccuracies in this text. One can open most Bibles and find more accurate versions. Yet the Church does not demand the people change because the Church recognizes that stability in prayer is important. You don�t go messing with someone�s prayer life unless it is absolutely required. Anyone who thinks that the people won�t notice change and be affected by it does not have even an elementary understanding of the relationship between language and prayer.

The reason to continue with the commonly known texts in use for the past 40 years is - !! � because they are commonly known! If they are accurate they do not need to be changed. Someone�s opinion of perfect is very often the enemy of something that is perfectly good.

Would Father David have gone to the older folks in 1960 and given them updates to the Church Slavonic version of the Divine Liturgy � something they had committed to memory?

Would he have told them that what they and their parents had prayed for generations needed improvements?

Has he not heard of the aftermath of the Nikonian Reforms among the Old Ritualists?

Or even recently the decision of the USCCB not to implement certain more accurate texts of the Roman Mass simply because the people have now memorized them after 40 years and they respect the people?

When you change texts that people have committed to memory for a lifetime you are impacting them at the deepest levels of their relationship with the Lord.

The Greek text is not normative for us. The Church Slavonic text as given in the 1942 Sluzebnik is normative for us. The proposed text should be abandoned at once and one prepared that is accurate to the text that is normative for us. Should changes be desired they need to be agreed upon by all the Churches that use the Ruthenian recension. Greek should be used only to interpret what is ambiguous in Church Slavonic. What is ambiguous in both Slavonic and Greek should be left ambiguous in English.

No, Father David. The tree that needs to move from the dormant state of winter into spring so that it can blossom is the tree of our official Ruthenian recension. Your personal experiments can wait until our Church is fed with the fruit of our own liturgical tradition for several generations. It is only after celebrating and being nourished by the fullness of our own liturgical tradition that we will be in a position to allow experimentation.

Can you not see that you are demanding multi-generational patience for your experiments while denying the same patience to allow the restoration of what is legitimately ours? How can you continue to claim a love and respect for the Ruthenian recension when you are crusading that it not be allowed to last into spring before you reshape the dormant branches to your personal taste? Why won�t you explain your adamant position against promulgating the Ordo and allowing our Church to experience the fullness of the Ruthenian recension? Are you afraid that the Church will see that your personal preferences would be rejected, so that you must force them upon us now? I really wish you would explain this.

The one who proposes change � especially mandated change � must document his claims. It is very interesting that Father David has adopted the tactic that those who propose change must be trusted and embraced and must not be asked to support their claims while those who appeal to what is officially ours are expected to document their positions. [Ironically my posts on the topic of liturgy and liturgical reform are all very well documented while Father David�s are almost not documented at all.]

Father Serge notes in his excellent review of the proposed Revised Liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states:

��in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence.�

Later, Cardinal Ratzinger states:

��as far as I can see� silence especially, might constitute communion before God.�

All of the evidence points to parts of the Anaphora being prayed quietly from the earliest times � long before the languages used developed past the point of no longer being the vernacular. Father David might like to believe otherwise but what he believes is simply not factual.

Then there is the issue that he has stated that it will take at least another generation for the Roman Catholics to continue the custom of praying the Anaphora aloud before the fruit can be seen. Why is he so insistent upon mandating this experiment upon our Church when there is yet no fruit from the experiment now going on in the Roman Catholic Mass? Especially when the current pope has indicated that silence might be best?

My position here is still the only logical position. The rubrics in our official Liturgicon are not specific as to whether the priest should pray this prayer quietly or aloud. If we leave the rubric alone and do not legislate further we allow for organic growth. If it is the will of the Spirit it will occur and no mandate will be necessary. Then the liturgical books can be adjusted in the typical Byzantine way � generations after customs are already widespread.

I certainly agree with Father David that changes have been proposed for over a century.

I disagree with Father David that they have been formally done � either over a century or at all.

But I again invite Father David to prove me wrong by providing a listing of Byzantine Liturgicons � Catholic and Orthodox � that abbreviate the Divine Liturgy, rewrite the rubrics and mandate that the priest pray many of the presbyteral prayers � especially the Anaphora � aloud.

One can find experimentation here and there. Experimentation in a few places is not a formal change to the Liturgy. One does not formalize change based upon someone�s ideas that are only in the early experimental stages. The most radical experiments in the Byzantine Liturgy occurring today are probably those at New Skete. New Skete�s experiments are pretty much rejected by all of Orthodoxy. They certainly have not been formalized as normative for all parishes of the Orthodox Church in America.

Again, Father David is demonstrably incorrect.

This clearly is not a Passaic problem.

I have compared the October 2004 rubrics with those currently mandated in Passaic. They are almost the same (except for a few �Borsukisms�). When the mandates were put into effect it was made clear that the changes were for the most part what would be mandated with the Revised Liturgy. Further, the clergy have been told by one of the Passaic members of the IELC that they need not fear the Revised Liturgy because the rubrics are already in place in Passaic.

The example of a mandated change to a service other than DL that I used that is chasing people from our parishes � the once mandated Vesper / Basil Divine Liturgy / Paschal Matins (here in the Passaic Eparchy) - is essentially Father David�s work. The mandated rubrics are almost identical to those given in the booklet: �Holy Saturday Vigil: Vespers with Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Resurrection Matins�, Eparchy of Parma, 1988, Nihil Obstat: The Very Reverend David M. Petras, Censor deputas, Impramatur: The Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, D.D., Bishop of Parma�. This book is the first official book that merged these services together and eliminated the little litanies between the odes of Pascha Matins (and etc.). While this booklet was not promulgated for use in Passaic most of the rubrics were. After the first year in which this was celebrated I complained to Bishop Andrews about the poor theology it was based upon (the Eucharist is always the high point of the Liturgy � and that Matins always precedes the Eucharist, and that the Vespers / Basil Liturgy was never like the modern Roman Catholic �Holy Saturday Vigil� but was primarily a Baptismal Liturgy and that we ought not to imitate it). Bishop Andrew admitted that the service was long and then said that Father David Petras said that this is what our tradition is supposed to be and go talk with him.

What is the result of Father David�s Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Resurrection Matins being promulgated in Passaic? Thud. Everyone complained. At my local parish here in Virginia the numbers dropped from 350+ from the last year of the old Matins / Chrysostom Divine Liturgy (which started at 10 PM) to about 50 the second year this Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Matins combination was celebrated. Reaction to this mandate has been similar in most parishes. Complaints from priests forced Bishop Andrew to relent and to make this service optional. But the damage is done and the people have left many of our parishes and are no longer celebrating Pascha with us. This past year the Vesper / Basil Divine Liturgy had about 35 people (it used to have 50-60 when it was at noon) and the Resurrection Matins / Chrysostom Liturgy had about 60. The missing people are not all at the morning Divine Liturgies. Most have gone elsewhere (or worse � no where at all). Another bad outcome of this horrid experiment is that now that parishes are forbidden to celebrate the Vesper / Basil Liturgy before 5 PM a growing number of parishes are simply dropping it all together.

We have seen the same thing happen here in the Passaic parishes which celebrate the Revised Liturgy. There is a noticeable drop in the numbers of people. This drop is not occurring in those parishes which have refused to implement the reforms. Ask the pastors, they know.

--

Again, the way forward here is for the Council of Hierarchs to formally declare the Liturgical Revision dead so that our Church may begin to recover from this misguided experiment. Next they should finally declare the �Ordo� as official for our Church, celebrating it themselves and mandating that it be used in the seminary. Then they should reprint the 1964/1965 English translation of the Liturgy with only those corrections that are absolutely necessary. After that they should work with all the bishops of the Ruthenian recension to create a single liturgical commission to prepare common texts of all the official service books of the Ruthenian recension. Yes, it is a lot of work but nothing worth doing is ever easy. The work done by our liturgical commission is flawed (with the missing litanies, incorrect rubrics and the use of exclusive �inclusive language�). But as I have stated repeatedly there is much good work there hiding behind the misguided attempts at revision.

John / Admin

After reading and rereading this I renew my hope and prayer for a conference. This time not just about this translation but a Pan Eastern or at least Pan Ruthenian conference to discuss issues of common concern. The first one should be of course about the liturgy. Working toward said conference should be meetings of heirarchs, priests, and represented laity to formulate areas for for prayerful deliberation at said conference. Following the Pan Eastern/Ruthenian conference would of course be commissions charged with various kinds of work including a new common translation.

The conference itself could be open to all interested parties. (No guns or knives allowed. )

CDL

I do not have time now or in the immediate future to respond to the Administrator's latest post.

I regret that it goes around and around, because he does not respond to what I say but to what he thinks I say.

The bottom line is this: the work of the Liturgy Commission will bring our Church as a whole to a greater fidelity to its Byzantine tradition. That fidelity cannot be forced, but it can be supported by the good will of the hierarchs, priests and faithful of our Church. I think most will see the reasonableness of what we are doing. Individual Orthodox have seen the reasonableness of what we are doing.

The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.
The work of the Liturgy Commission is not simply my own project for the Church.

The Administrator seems convinced of this and if this argument has to go around and around and around and around and around in circles, so be it. It has become a war, and in my sixties, I know one thing, in a war, no one wins.

I wish I had the luxury to simply dismiss evidence that the Admionistrator does not like - e.g. the favorable review of the Oriental Congregation, but I have more integrity.

The Administrator has not even begun to discuss what organic developments are. The only one he mentions is the reading of the gospel of the Resurrection before Paschal Orthros, which is done only because of a liturgical devolution - the minimalization of the Paschal Vigil Liturgy.
The combination of the services is a Passaic problem, which was imported from the Cathedral in Parma, no loneger doen there nor in any other church outside of Passaic, as far as I know. I gave a "nihil obstat" to the book for the Parma Cathedral, but a "nihil obstat" does not indicate that the author agrees with the contents, only that there is nothing in the contents contrary to faith or morals.

Of course, one hopes for co-operation between all the Ruthenian Churches and the Orthodox Churches - this does not disqualify us from the pastoral care of our own people. One hopes that all churches will eventually find a way to an authentic and genuine liturgy in the tradition of the Byzantine Church, but it may well have diversity because of the different pastoral needs of the various churches, and one hopes for genuine organic development.

He scoffs at the idea of faithfulness in spirit, but there is such a thing, the 1905 books were not faithful in spirit, but our churches are now much more faithful in spirit, and the work of the Liturgy Commission is faithful in spirit.

Liturgiam Authenticam is for the Roman Church, not the Byzantine Church - and for a very good reason. The whole question is "inclusive language" is not a "Ruthenian recension" question but one of ecclesiology, theology and sociology.

The Administrator wrote: "Rediscovering and living our tradition MUST precede updating." The "updating" sir, is a part of the tradition. The Liturgy as proposed will help us to rediscover and live our tradition today.

My life and my work has been dedicated to the restoration of our tradition. I think I have as good an idea of it - I think a better idea - than do you. Your stance of being the sole supporter of the Byzantine tradition against the evil Father David is wearing thin. I am not the legislator of the Liturgy, nor are you, but the bishops are - despite your constant attempts at canonical obfuscation. You interpret statements of the See of Rome only in the sense of literal fundamentalism. Even the Ruthenian recension, which is the norm, was the vision mostly of one man - Cyril Korolevsky, which the church made its own. It remains the norm, but the norm in spirit, and in the two generations since then there have been organic developments. The Ruthenian Recension is a text, words in a book, it does not come alive until it is celebrated. The problem here is that we are stuck in textualism, and cannot see what the Ruthenian Recension is really about.

You "demonize" me as if I were the author of everything that you hate about the present scene - "Father David's Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Resurrection being promulgated in Passaic - it was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction.
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction.
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction
It was not "my" book, and I demand a retraction

There is so much more I could say, but have to catch a plane.

Father David

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Cheerup!! Things are only going to get worse!!

Thanks for the encouragement.

CDL

Got to die first, boss. Then live.

Eli

I hesitate even to respond anymore, since I am so depressed about the state of Ruthenia.

Fr. David says:
Perhaps we would see the reasonableness of what the IELC is doing, if we could actually see it. Maybe, if we had a conference, we could be convinced of the reasonableness. If the work is so good, and the reasons for everything so good that they will engender assent, why not publicize everything, the current liturgy, the reasons for the changes, the letter from the Congregation, everything?

Let the truth win out, I say.

As for demandind retractions, Fr. David should retract the following claims

"As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down."

Also, he should retract the following:

"Pseudo-Athanasios said:
�Read Fr. David's review of Keleher's book, where he seems to see no role for us in the future, despite Orientale Lumen, the documents of Vatican II, and Archbishop Vsevelod and Bishop Kallistos Ware.� This is not my opinion in any way, this is what Serge Keleher said he thought was my opinion, which Pseudo-Athanasios says is my opinion because Serge Keleher said that is Fr. David�s opinion."

I beg your pardon, Fr. David, but I have a brain too, and I can come to an opinion about a text wihout getting it from Fr. Keleher. You insinuate that I am some sort of robot, merely parrotting the insidious Fr. Keleher. This is beneath you. I await an apology.

Of course, it is absurd for me to take umbrage at these statements, isn't it? It is absurd for me to stamp my feet and demand apologies. It shows a defect in my character. I should refrain from getting angry with Fr. David, and I should simply debate the issue at hand. I therefore take back my demands for apologies.

I suggest Fr. David do likewise. He is very quick to take offense, but also very quick to give offense.

Now, can I ask a question? What is the positive benefit to the faithful of mandating that the antiphons only be one verse each? I've asked many times, but perhaps my question keeps getting lost.

Eli,

You are sounding better all the time. This is precisely what Father Thomas keeps telling us. But the death is o so slow. TS Eliot understood such things and of course so did Jesus. Good reminder.

CDL

P-S,

I wonder if there is something in the water in Pittsburgh. Is it actually same in some places there?

CDL

Easier to remind than to do.

We'd better leave this channel open, even though the door seems to have slammed shut.

God's blessings.

Eli

P-S,

Another typo. I typed "is it same..." I meant "is it SANE". Is anyone sane in Pittsburgh. I suppose so. I'd like to see more examples of it though.

CDL

Our esteemed Administrator has repeatedly cited the merged Paschal service as THE primary example of how liturgical change has "driven people away", and has attributed this change to Father David. Yet, Father's own Typikon (at least for all the years I have used it) has no such merged service, and I have never seen it celebrated at the Seminary.

Given that convergence, yes, actual evidence should be cited before blaming that particular combined service on Father David. (I certainly would not want to publish what my own head cantor says about our Administrator's music and the fidelity thereof, based as it is on some mistaken premises, and hearsay. I would hate to see the same done in this case, which is being claimed as THE test case for liturgical reform.)

Father has written quite a bit; why not discuss his published opinions here, rather than the decisions of his (previous) bishop?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Administrator,

thanks for starting this thread as it is an important one.

Father David wrote:

"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."

This may evoke a similar negative reaction from Father David like we saw earlier in this thread, but I fail to see how Father David can continue to post remarks like this and be taken seriously when words like 'Orthodox' are prohibited. True faith is a better translation? As I have posted before in another thread, the Ukrainians, Roman Greek Catholics and Melkites have been able to translate this this way yet we can't. And then I have to continue to read that Father David thinks we should choose the better translation but doesn't actually do this. Maybe Father David can calmy explain.

I know he's not the only one on the commission so I am anticipating the answer being that there are others on the commission and the majority went with the inferior translation in this case. If this is the case I can't help but think how sad it is that the majority of a Byzantine Catholic commission could reach such a decision.

Will priests ever be given the latitude to substitute the word 'Orthodox' for 'true faith' if the texts preclude it?

Orthodox is not allowed, feminist inclusive language is, what a world.

mc