www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Download the New Liturgy!

The question arises. If exceptions are made and a parish is permitted to do a fuller celebration of the Liturgy, where will they get the approved translation of those parts which are now omitted in the current draft?

Wouldn't it be better to also have those parts translated now so that could be a real possibility?

Nec

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

My surname is not a pseudonym, and it does not come with quotation marks. I got it from my father, who got it from his father, who got it, ultimately, from some distant ancestor whose family immigrated to Avellino from Albania, and who decided he needed an Italian-sounding surname. I use it on this forum not because it's supposed to mean anything to you, but because it's my name.

It has been pointed out previously by ByzKat that additional antiphon verses will be available from the MCI. I am not sure how many - probably three as in the 1965 edition, rather than the full psalm. (This abbreviation is OK, I guess?) Additional prokimenon and Alleluia verses? I am not sure what the proper, unabbreviated number is, but again the MCI may be the source.

To Michael Robusto and all,

It occurs to me (thanks to a private messager) that I should be clearer about what I mean by "ideology." I use the term rather loosely--everyone comes to a text with an ideology, a point of view. Perhaps "point of view" is a better phrase, since it is less loaded. Certainly I don't think Fr. David or the IELC are parts of some evil cabal bent on destroying true worship!

But I do think they translated with a point of view, a view of the liturgy and of language that is problematic. Not heretical or evil, but problematic. For example, I have been trying to understand the rationale for abbreviation in the new liturgy. There is something in that point of view that says that litanies can be omitted (not merely made optional). What's wrong with litanies? I wonder. I'd like to know how the committee decided to translate certain things. Since the committee (with the notable and noble exception of Fr. David) has been silent, there are no answers, no list of principles guiding the translation. That's something I'd like to see. Perhaps it would convince me!

I'm not privy to the internal discussions of the Liturgical Commission, but one of the statements made at the Cantor Institute sessions in which the new liturgy was presented (Professor Thompson obtained the Metropolitan's permission to use the people's text of the proposed Divine Liturgy at last year's MCI; it was distributed for the cantors (some of whom are on this forum) to study, and Father David gave several talks on it) was as follows:

There was an impetus toward providing a text with as few "decision points" and alternatives as possible. (Those familiar with the Roman Liturgy will be aware that, since 1965, a great number of alternative possibilities have been added throughout the Mass.) So rather than, for example, printing certain litanies and verses in small print, implying that they were optional, the proposed People's Book has a SMALLER number of such "branch points" in the Divine Liturgy, making some things required that were once optional, and omitting what is not required, with a FEW exceptions (the Litany of the Catechumens, etc.)

Several people here have said that "whatever is made optional will be omitted". If this is true, then imposing a higher "minimum standard" makes SENSE, but at the cost of leaving in doubt whether a priest or parish may keep an even higher standard.

Myself, I trust our priests more than some posters do here, but pastors certainly need encouragement - because they WILL take complaints from some quarters whenever they add a prayer or litany that was omitted before. In this case, bishops and commission members may need encouragement as well!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Thank you for the link. Sadly, the page cuts off before the end of the liturgy, but I was able to get an idea of the style of worship used in ACROD. Too bad there are no ACROD Churches where I live.

Dear DJS,

Unfortunately, this friend is reluctant to post on this messageboard, but he has background in both UGCC, where he was raised,and initially was being educated for priesthood, and in our Metroplia, where he is a cantor. I can't speak for him, but I'll try to answer your questions as I understand his view.
As to the first question, he appears to see Fr. Petrus as a "mover and shaker" on the IELC.
As to the idea of "rite", I believe he is saying that the new, abbreviated" translation may be approved and viewed as a replacement for the 1941 Old Slavonic edition of the Liturgy, which is a full celebration. Thus, the creation of a new "rite", which abrogates (or obrogates) the present one. As to our "rights" as a sui juris Church, he is saying that, given the existence of an approved rite (the 1941 translation), the sui iuris Church is viewed as having the right to make pastoral abbreviations of the official rite, for pastoral reasons, but that the sui iuris Church may not prohibit a fuller celebration, if a priest or bishop desires to do that. Hope this clarifies. BTW, I'd really like to try and get this person to post here. He has a lot of knowledge, and a lot of contacts in the Catholic and Orhodox worlds.

Dn. Robert

Seems likely. The ACROD parish near me is probably somewhat middle of the road. They have an older ethnic base, but have attracted converts as well which will probably change the dynamic somewhat. They are certainly Eastern, but have maintained some very visible Latinizations.

Personally, I don't view those as optional

Andrew

I�ve seen the exact opposite happen in real life. I�ve known parishes that did not take all the litanies place into their pews a book that contained them. Over time the people started asking the priest �Why don�t we take these here?� Soon they were taking more of them.

A fact of life: The lower you set the standard the less likely anyone is going to reach it.

This is SO TRUE!

It certainly is. I must remember that line and put it to good use!

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

I sincerely hope that your efforts bear fruit in our Metropolia. Thanks for your input.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I'm not the one you need to convince, John. For some reason, many things never change in the Metropolia unless the bishops order it. I don't like it, but it has to be taken into account.

I noted that fewer litanies are marked as optional in the new book than in the old 1965 and 1978 "pew" books, while some were either removed. (In fact, three of the "removed litanies" were not on the old books either.) Several people asked why the litanies were left out of the new books rather than being marked optional. At least one poster opposed to the changes insisted that whatever is marked optional would never be used.

In this context, what the Commission did was logical - to raise the MINIMUM standard. So I tried to pass on the explanation we were given - i.e. that one or more influential members of the hierarchy / commission did not want lots of optional parts in the Liturgikon. I do not particularly agree with the logic, but people in this thread were asking for a reason.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. I know that you are only relating information that you are privy to.

I will disagree that this revision will in any way raise the minimum standard. Why does anyone expect that those priests who ignored earlier liturgical mandates are all of a sudden going to eagerly embrace a new standard (of any type)? Human nature is what it is and people resist change. The older one gets the more likely he is to resist change. It is very unlikely that priests over 65 are going to make any changes whatsoever because they are mandated. A mandate will only work when it is backed up by a legitimate way to enforce it. The only way to enforce any liturgical mandate is to threaten to retire or fire those priests who do not comply. [Of course that will be very easy to do because our seminary is overflowing with men just waiting for ordination who can replace them!]

The only way forward here is to enlist the enthusiasm of the clergy.

Here at work I�m always being sent to management courses that speak about the importance of project ownership and peer reviews (I serve on a number of these types of teams). Those who are part of the development process invest something of themselves into the product. The result is that they care about the product. This generates enthusiasm and people willingly embrace what is going on. Our software development, test, documentation and management groups always submit all of their work (and processes) for peer review by other groups (with the peer groups including all levels from subject matter expert to novice). Getting outside input from uninvolved people helps detect a lot of mistakes that would not have been caught by those involved (no one can proof his own work) as well as helping the group to realize that there is a lot going on outside their day-to-day world that they should pay attention to. The final result is always a better quality product and enthusiam for it.

Life in the Church is really not much different. He who wishes to accomplish change must first enlist the enthusiasm of those he believes need to change. Without this enthusiasm change will be extremely difficult � if not impossible � to accomplish. From what I have seen over the past number of years the vast majority of the clergy are opposed to the proposed revisions to the Liturgy (the Forum discussions are mild compared to some of the discussions among the clergy I�ve heard about). When you�ve managed to unite both the Vostochnicks and the Latinizers against the Revision there is little chance it can be accomplished.