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

We still kneel, even the servers kneel (with the latter there is no consistancy in the eparchy as to even where they stand). We kneel even during the no kneeling times.

Hopefully the prompts will go.

Even the best scholars can sometimes fail to resist provocation; that doesn't necessarily make them bad scholars. :rolleyes:

But I think the people are not "getting" Fr. David's use of repetition. Doesn't it just refer to the administrator's rationale for setting out, immune from all discussion and correction over the years, to repeat his mantra, once again.

... If you repeat it often enough ...

Attempting to defend an indefensible trantrum has to be tough.


~Isaac

It is another thing again, to mistake every disagreement for a personal attack.

Nick

Jeff,

I�m confused here because I received my copy of this service from Father David himself back around 1990. He presented it to me back then as the way of the future. I find it odd that he now claims no involvement except as �censor deputatus�.

BTW, have Holy Week services ever been celebrated at the seminary? I thought the seminarians all went to parishes for Holy Week?

I don�t see criticism as a provocation or personal attack. In every mailing I have done over the past 25 years I have asked for criticism and comments. I regularly receive feedback from priests, cantors and others who ask for my materials. I find that the criticism and suggestions have made my work better.

That is precisely what we are doing!

There is a traditional children's rhyme - a piece of authentic Americana, in fact - which has come to my mind a couple of times recently:

"I don't want to play in your yard.
You can't play here any more!
You'll be sorry when you see me
Swinging on our cellar door.

You can't holler down our rain barrel.
You can't climb our apple tree!
I don't want to play in your yard
If you won't be good to me."


It even has music. But who or what could have called this rhyme repeatedly to my mind in the past few days, I wonder?

Fr Serge

Being on the road, I don't know how often I'll be able to check in. I thank Michael Robusto for his remarks. He was my parishioner in Holy Ghost when I was administrator there from 1992-1995. It's true there was some foot-stomping, but the idea that all the work of the IELC or even anything that has been done anywhere by anyone that the Administrator doesn't like seems to be blamed on me, and no matter what I say, he persists in that accusation. That is precisely the reason I repeated it, it should last for about ten posts, before I have to renew my denial. I'm not the kind of person that wants to close doors, but on this forum I have been forced into a defensive posture. Some misconceptions have to be cleared before we can have positive discussion. I suspect - though I am not denying the sincerity of the Administrator in his opposition to the work of the IELC - that the tactic is to set up a "straw man" that is easy to knock down, and if he can damage my credibility, then it will make the whole liturgical project lose credibility. That is why I called it a "war", because "All is fair in love or war." Such tactics will work, of course, if the reader is also opposed to the issue, but is certainly trying to one's patience to be constantly misrepresented and repeatedly attacked. It is also the reason, as I have told others in private messages, that this Forum is not a place where this liturgical work can get a fair hearing. On reflection, it does have one value, I can see which issues will be brought up when we begin our catechesis, for the bishops never intended that this be presented without catechesis and explanation.
What is it that we are trying to accomplish? Our Lord said at the Mystical Supper, "Do this in memory of me." The memory comes particularly in the presbyteral (or episcopal as Fr. Serge likes to say) office, the prayers which recount the loving events of our Lord's gift from creation to the second coming, and which form the basis for our liturgical anamnesis (commemoration). For historical reasons, this presbyteral office has become inaudible for the people - yes, for many centuries - though certainly it was the original foundation of the Liturgy, to which the deacon and the people added there "con-celebration" as St. John Chrysostom once so eloquently pointed out. Of everything that the IELC has done, this is the most important and courageous. I would rank it with the courage we had in the 50's to go vernacular, despite the reluctance of the universal Church and strident internal opposition - which caused many to leave our Church at that time. I've lived through both, and I see similarities. The other "casus belli" is inclusive language. Professor Michael Thompson pointed out in another thread that this was added on the recommendation by Rome. They did not demand it, they left our bishops free on this point, but it was the decision made then to introduce some horizontal inclusive language. The Administrator, again seeking someone to focus his remarks on, speculated that the Oriental Congregation review - which otherwise he refuse to admit the existence of, since he has not seen it - was written by Father Taft, one of the people he seems to dislike. One irony - among others - is that the principle that he so frequently espouses, that we cannot make any changes in the Liturgy until we have experienced the Ruthenian Recension for a number of years (generations?) was actually the principle espoused by Father Taft beginning in the 70's. The problem is that the Administrator will aceept only textual fundamentalism, whereas Father Taft would see a promulgation such as that by Bishop Emil in 1970, or our later promulgations or the new translation as fulfilling the principle in spirit. And there has been subsequent organic development, such as our perception of the importance of the presbyteral office. I see the inclusive language question as more sociological than theological, since as Christians, we obviously believe that Christ has come to save all people, women as well as men, and all races and ethnicities, Jew as well as Greek.
The question of the antiphons has to be dealt with serarately. Antiphons are not found in the "Ruthenian Recension" since they are variable elements that are part of the people's office. Please remember that the office of three verses is actually an abbreviation of the whole psalm, which was song when the antihpons were still processional hymns.
I don't know when I'll be able to respond again, and will be attending the foundational meeting of the Society of Eastern Liturgists next week in Eichstatt, Germany.
Best wishes to all in Christ,

Father David

While writing my long reply, the Administrator claimed that in 1900 or thereabouts, I made the claim that the combination was the "wave of the future." Since at that time, 16 years ago, when this issue was not yet so controversial, I may have made some positive statements about the book - but I have never espoused the particular combination. It's easy to misunderstand statements. My role as censor of books is simply to judge that in a book there is nothing against faith or morals, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with the contents. I have never celebrated that combination in any parish I've been in. I would - and have done - the Paschal Vigil in the evening. Then later the Paschal Orthros, either at a separate time in the night or Sunday morning, and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, either with or separate from the Paschal Orthros. I have discovered, in a private message, that there is at least one other parish in the Parma Eparchy that does that combination, but I am unaware of others, but would be glad to hear of any data in this regard,

Father David

As Nicholas previously posted:
"Like many of us, the Administrator thinks that nothing other than an accurate, careful, complete translation of those books will do. (without alteration to the rubrics, inclusive language, reorganization or any other hint at revision)."

That would get a fair hearing. Of course by fair hearing you mean no one challenge or disagree.


To create something that breaks from our Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Romanian Greek Catholic bretheren and has feminized inclusive language is the most important and courageous? Wow!?


So is it to make sure that we stay in the 45 - 55 minute timeframe for a liturgy that we are abbreviating the abbrevation?

Why not make three or more available in the published book, since many are convinced here that for the 40 years most parishes have only taken one, then most will probably only take one and you'll be happy. Was there ever another time when besides the last 40 years that only one verse was taken?

Will the 'Bless the Lord all my soul...' be available and used as well?


Monomakh

Dear Father David,

Remember your theology. You cannot be forced into any kind of bad or sinful behavior. Even at gunpoint, you have a choice. Ask the nearest martyr. We all make that choice to yield to our emotions or not. This is the heart of what we believe. Kenosis. Empty ourselves to be filled with the Light.

Don't worry about what John/Administrator says that might press you to upset. Focus on the substance and remember that there are those of us out here who would like to see all the posturing and bickering stop and the dialogue begin.

Examine the work. Examine yourself. Be willing to back away from a favored position and allow light and air in. You might wind up with something better, and something that you may have wanted in the first place.

Don't think we are out here pulling faces at you. We are not. I am not. I am interested in both sides of a dialogue here. I am deeply concerned that the liturgy succumbs to weak theology.

I have preferences just like the rest, but I won't slam a door over them.

Well, not more than once

God bless you Father. Please don't give up on us. We haven't given up on you.

Eli

Eli,

I quite agree with you. Well said.

CDL

Well-spoken. And, of course, important not just for Fr. David, but vitally important for us all.

Absolutely! Daily!

or if one is Eli, then moment by moment! :p

Eli

Eli,

What you post here is VERY true - in nearly every aspect of life. In my own career while consulting with leaders at all levels domestically and internationally, I encounter many leaders who have forgotten the power of reconciling apparent opposites and learning through encountering challenge and differences of opinion. Sometimes it is a matter of compressed time frames, sometimes it is a driving personal or corporate agenda, sometimes it is a lack of openness to learn from others or to face personal mistakes, sometimes it is a fear of the natural ambiguity that results from a possible change in direction. I too find myself moving along with projects and will forget to involve people, or will close myself off to opinions because I don't feel I have the capacity to respond to what is being recommended.

I can say, having worked on 3 continents now, that this problem is universal - it is part of our human nature. I can also say that I have personally learned more through dialog with individuals with whom I differed than from staying in my comfortable shell.

With that said, I did not intend to diagnose anything to do with Father David. Mine was only a personal observation based on what you shared.

God bless,

Gordo

Father David previously posted:"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".

Slavipodvizhnik reminded us of this quote from this thread in the 'Coming to a Location Near You?" thread.

How officially chopping up and feminizing the Divine Liturgy brings our Church as a whole to a greater fidelity to its Byzantine Tradition is beyond me. Maybe Father David could explain in more detail this point as well as how one verse antiphons are traditional.

Wouldn't greater fidelity to our Tradition involve not worrying if we are in and out of church in under 50 minutes?

Father David, do you agree or disagree that there's only so much water you can add to grape juice before it stops tasting like grape juice and starts to taste more like water?

How much more can we water down our tradtions and liturgy?

I have a feeling that a response would claim 'organic growth'. More than a generation have been deprived of many of their orthodox traditions and somehow because they have never been properly informed is organic?

Monomakh