www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Are we Obligated?

Much has been discussed in this forum over the last few months regarding the merits or lack there of, of the proposed recasting of the Divine Liturgy by our hierarchs. At the moment, my opinion on the matter has no bearing on the issue. However let's take a look at 1 fact, and only 1 fact. Rome, in 1941/42 published an "official" version of the the Ruthenian recension, at the request of the Ruthenian Hierarchs. Our bishops were instructed to progulmate that same liturgy.

Are we the laity in any way obligated to go along with any liturgy that does not completely conform to the 1941/42 version? After all, ALL the bishops since Basil Takach have been, and are in contempt of Rome, why should we, the faithful, be too? If
our bishops are in error, are we obligated to follow?

Much has been made by those defending the revisionist liturgy, mainly, that it is our right as a church to decide what we should/should not do. Frankly, the answer to that is no. If our esteemed hierarchs decided that members of the congregation should perform "liturgical dance numbers" to interpret the Gospel as it was being sung, how many would go along with that? (Unfortunately, I do know of a parish in the Parma Eparchy that would adopt it in an instant). That is not an organic development, nor is the reduction and recasting that is being proposed.

The point, you don't get to pick and choose. The liturgy is not a cafeteria, where one can choose just those standard things they like, nor indulge in the "special of the day" because it looks interesting. Rome didn�t give us a cafeteria plan, they gave us a whole feast, but we have been denied a seat at that table by our own hierarchs.


Sine Nomine

He who is without a name makes a good point. In fact, the most grevious issue in the new translation about which I have written --leaving out "men" in the Creed -- brings the point home. By whose authority will this be done? It is not really a translation issue. "Men" simply isn't being translated, it's being left out. Leaving out "men" in the Creed, if it were to be legitimate, might require an Ecumenical Council, but a simple "promulgation" with this ommission, would be illegitimate. This argument, however, probably would not apply to a note in the chant -- which might be ill advised, but not illigetimate.

Sine Nomine wrote: Well, Sine Nomine brings up a good point. If our bishops are in contempt of the instructions from Rome, what recourse do we have? Are we to just tacitly stand by as the faithful have done for the last 60 years and let this perpetuate? Secondly, does Rome know the Bishops are in contempt, and that the Hierarchs� translation of this new Divine Liturgy is mired in controversy? I�ve never written a post with so many questions�perhaps there�s someone here who knows Canon Law who could comment on what, if anything, we could do?

JMQs,
Cathy

P.S. If we followed the new translation, would it be considered a mortal sin or a venial sin??

Sine Nomine wrote:
"Rome, in 1941/42 published an "official" version of the the Ruthenian recension, at the request of the Ruthenian Hierarchs. Our bishops were instructed to progulmate that same liturgy."

I couldn't say it better myself and I have a name.

It boggles the mind how those on this board will tell us who question this upcoming debacle of a Liturgy on why we should say anything and that we would be better off sitting in a corner with our mouths shut.

Yet, they never question that our bishops have not been obedient to the Rescension approved in 1941/1942.

I guess that would go into contradiction of their revisionist beliefs.

The bottom line is that we are all stuck in a bad cafeteria and the whole menu isn't even offered.

Monomakh

At least, in reciting the Creed, one of omission.

Now that's an interesting analogy...

Why can't we have the full feast?

I agree. That is profound...

And let's take the toxic spinach off the menu, shall we?

Personally I prefer fresh spinach. But each to his own taste, as Mrs. O'Leary said before she kissed the cow.

Fr. Serge

I know a host of kids that wish cauliflower and brussel sprouts would be removed next!
Much Love,
Jonn

I'm quite fond of Brussels sprouts - preferably with lots of butter and maybe a bit of lemon. Cauliflower I can put up with if it's not served too often.

But speaking of vegetables, it's time for Great Pumpkin pie!

Fr. Serge

Sine Nomine, great post.

It's too bad that those in power wouldn't understand what you wrote even if you flow-diagrammed it for them.

Ever since the copy with parts of the new liturgy and stories of a recording being made of it to be distributed has come to light, I haven't heard even a peep out Father David or J. Michael Thompson. I wonder where they are? Must just be a coincidence, yeah right.

mc

Michael Cerularius wrote: MC - Yes, JMT announced the recordings last year at the cantor institue from what I've been told. It will be used as an aid for cantors and congregations to come up to speed on the new music/translation. I will use my set to add a dramatic focal point to my Christmas tree.

Thank you for bringing the topic back on track, I'm only sorry that it was treated so lightly. It was a very serious question, and I wish the replies were in the same vein. Maybe the question is too serious?

Sine Nomine

It is a very serious question indeed. At least give it a chance to try implementing what we were supposed to originally. It is interesting that a specific discussion at the recent Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church Synod entailed developing better instruction for and distribution of the official books.
FDD

Now that the RDL has been publbished, I think the question should be brought up again. Please restrict your conversation to the topic in the original post.