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

Father Serge bless!

Thanks for the help with the Greek.

refuses to ask for forgiveness for very recently escorting elderly parishioners under armed guard out of a church after announcing the parish closure following services and discarding their memories into a dumpster - all with no warning of what was coming.

Unfortunately, this also happened back in the 30s when ACROD was created. I know people (who became Orthodox) who will never set foot in a Byzantine Catholic Church under any circumstances, whose relatives a generation ago were treated that way. Worse still, they were put in jail. Not only does such action hurt people in the present, but also for generations to come.

We needn't expect participative management techniques to be used. After all, the Church does not govern like a democracy. But, I hope and pray that efforts will be made to help people understand the changes before they are implemented. It will depend on how much leverage our priests are given.

Pray for all concerned.

Dear John,
You are most welcome; glad I could be of help.

Jim writes:

Quite true. But neither does the Church govern like a dictatorship; the Church has a government of laws, not rule by decree!

Fr. Serge

the Church has a government of laws, not rule by decree!

Well, someone enforces the laws, or not, depending. If they are not enforced, what consequences are there (in this life) for that someone's failure to do so?

Jim,
God works in His own good time - but He does indeed work. Trying to work against the Law of God and the divine "constitution" of the Church has a remarkable way of failing! If you would like a classic example, check out the history of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.

Fr Serge

One of the interesting things about eastern christians is their ability to reject official decisions from time to time, probably less so on the Catholic side. There are a few dead Constantinopolitan patriarchs who could speak from experience. Whether the new book is rejected or not will depend on how big the changes are perceived to be, but everyone is still expected to live lives of christian charity and humility in the process. That may well tip the balance toward tolerance. It's a matter of having to wait to see how it gets played out, because most churchgoers are not reading all this stuff written here.

Dear Jim,
You are correct - the Eastern Churches do have a knack of, let us say, allowing this and that to fall into desuetude without much comment. Actually Rome inadvertently encourages the process sometimes - for a case in point, wade through the "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches", which presumes the existence of a vast juridical bureaucracy that simply isn't there.

When it comes to the Liturgy, though, another problem arises: when the faithful are not happy with major liturgical developments, the usual reaction is to stay away. Those who wish to make the effort will go elsewhere; those who are more lethargic will go nowhere. Neither is healthy for the Church.

This phenomenon of alienation is unfortunately encouraged precisely by the failure to give the faithful a sense of ownership in the process of liturgical change. Doing this to a community which is held together by its common Liturgy is not going to lead to any good end (unless, of course, one would want the faithful to go quietly away).

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father Sergius!

Your words remind me of the struggle over the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate of yesteryear . . . I know you remember it well, as do I!

Street protests and even a choir in Chicago that sang "Anaxios!" when a bishop, deemed by them to be disobedient to Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor, was consecrated (he refused to go to Rome to receive the Patriarch's blessing, I believe).

But that situation just resulted in a poisoned atmosphere in the Church.

Happily, things are somewhat different now and we even have Basilian priests here that commemorate the "Patriarch!"

No, I'm not fibbing . . .

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

How true. Remember a few years ago when Cardinal Sodano (I beleive it was after some prodding by the Polish RC hierarchy)issued an "order" to all of the UGCC married priests in the Archeparchy of Peremyshl-Warsaw to "return" to Ukraine (I believe most had been born and raised in Poland), with the further brilliant observation that Polish RC priests could be trained to celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy, and serve the Ukrainian people in Poland. I remember that when Patriarch Lubomyr was told about this that his public reaction was "That's odd!". Bottom line: those priests are still serving in Peremyshl-Warsaw!

Dn. Robert

There is a flip side to rejection of official decisions- cases where no official decision gets made. What happens sometimes, if we're talking about service books or musical arrangements, is that materials may become available anyway unofficially, and some parishes decide to use them while others do not. I'm speaking in cases where there is no clear hierarchical instruction one way or the other. Not all parishes in the Metropolia use the same music sources currently, which sometimes causes confusion when talking about what works and what doesn't. Some music sources are well received around Pittsburgh, but rejected elsewhere possibly due to lack of official support. Then again....

Dear Jim,

In the UGCC, we already have a situation where there are two Ukrainian-language liturgical translations around and used by various parishes.

There is the translation of Patriarch Joseph, the older one and then there is the revised one.

A controversy broke out when the doxology, in the revised translation, read, "and unto the eternal ages" as opposed to the older one "and unto the ages of ages."

Those who attacked the former said that it suggested an heretical tenet that the ages are "eternal" when they are not etc.

Even though the revision had the approval of the UGCC Synod - many parishes continue to use the translation of Patriarch Joseph because: 1) they are loyal to his memory and this is one way of expressing that loyalty; 2) the new translation sounds "funny" and because it has so much modern Ukrainian it just doesn't sound right - some priests are also afraid that it too closely approximates the Ukrainian Orthodox liturgy and they feel they must guard against too close relations with the Ukr. Orthodox - what if Ukie Catholics begin to go over to them? 3) the liturgical experts find a number grave errors in the translation that affect theology, as above.

The UGCC parishes are used to doing their own thing, as a rule. There is one parish here, the one I attend, that has a virtual liturgical moat around it . . .

And if you attend a parish that has the older translation then you are branded a "traditionalist" or a "nationalist" or what-not.

When our bishop learned of the parish I attended, he commented how surprised he was that I taught religion in English . . .

I told him that I keep that as quiet as possible and try not to think about it myself too often . . .

But if you attend a parish that uses the revised liturgy then you are either "Canadianized," "liberal," or else "Latinized."

So take your pick . . .

Ultimately, liturgical revision, in order to be acceptable to all, would have to be done with a joint committee involving people from both sides of the Pond!

So you BC's have it rather easy . . .

Alex

This new liturgy is going to divide our church big time. No one wants a Divine Liturgy revised according to 1970s liberal Roman Catholic principles. And the music they are trying to push is awful. Our pastor has forbidden our cantors to participate in that so called MCI organization. Our catechists were told not to go to the workshop because all they were planning was more propaganda on how wonderful the new liturgy is. A skunk covered with incense is still a skunk.

Dear Father Deacon,

Yes, who listens to Rome in these matters anyway?

We had three married priests suspended up here for . . . being married priests.

They went on to serve parishes until, finally, Rome decided to drop the suspensions and sent them certificates informing them of the matter.

Many UGCC parishes and people firmly believe that Rome has NO business in our internal affairs.

In fact, many of us feel that Rome has plenty of work on its hands to better manage ITS own internal affairs.

As a Church with a developed consciousness of being a Patriarchate - which we are - it is time for Rome not only to acknowledge the fact but to also acknowledge that we've taken the matter of our communion with Rome into our own hands, are defining it ourselves and are also drawing the lines of demarcation with respect to Roman jurisdiction over us.

And those lines basically say, "We can do it ourselves, grazie bene!"

Rome go home, leave us alone!

Alex

Dear Alex,
In a sense it's worse than that. In Ukraine they've produced yet another translation. At my advanced age I'm still using Patriarch Joseph's, and will be happy to continue to do so.
Part of the reason for this donkey derby is that Certain People wanted a sweet revenge on Patriarch Joseph, and undercutting his translations was a handy way to do it.

Most recently, the Ukrainian Orthodox - at least the ones in Ukraine - are coming to appreciate Patriarch Joseph's translations. Artful of them!

MANY parishes have a virtual litugical moat around them!

But you mention that "if you attend a parish that has the older translation then you are branded a "traditionalist" or a "nationalist" or what-not". Since our parish uses sthe older translation, can I be a what-not?

Tell the Bishop that you teach religion in English so as to avoid the controversy over which Ukrainian translation to use!

Finding a liturgical revision acceptable to all is impossible without first establishing criteria acceptable to all. Since such criteria are lacking, don't hold your breath!

Fr. Serge