www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I have never.... (A discussion regarding BCA and Orthodox practice and behavior

Besides, asking people their last names as evidence of their ethnicity is stupid. Is a person with an Italian father and a Ruthenian mother less Ruthenian than one with a Ruthenian father and an Italian mother? Name any other nationality instead of Italian, if you wish. If that's to be the case, one look at the roster of our clergy and hierarchy ought to dissuade one of that. On that basis, then Pavel's insistence on having a "non-Ruthenian bishop" has long since been filled. Schott is not a Ruthenian name root. Others of our hierarchy have not been "Ruthenian" so much as they have been Slovak, Czech, Hungarian and even Croat in the past.

I agree completely!

The way that I approached those piercing inquiries concerning my motives and my patrimony was precisely as though it were the preamble for sharing our respective stories.

And when I responded kindly and not, in kind, a whole new world opened up. First I was a guest, and finally I was granted my own key to the front door. So I do not believe that it cannot be done.

Eli

I agree as well. The problem is that such confusion can occur in many ways: witness my own head cantor, who seldom mentions singing is Slavonic, but simply refers to singing "in our language."

Regardless, each liturgical rite comes TO US as a gift from God through the Church, and it comes via a cultural matrix. It is the task of the bishops to determine which parts of this matrix MUST be preserved, and the clergy and people to support them in this work of preservation (and, sometimes, restoration); similarly, it is our job as layfolk, and parents in particular, to make use of the cultural matrix as seems best, to foster the GROWTH of the Christian life in ourselves, our children, and our community. (As Peter Maurin used to point out, the whole point of culture is growth - cult, culture, agriculture...)

There may be much which does not HAVE to be kept. but which would be GOOD to keep.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

That, Jeff, is the meaning of "riches"....i.e., "more than is absolutely needful at a minimum".....and think here of spiritual riches.

When we are willing not only to KEEP the riches we have inherited from the past, but ADD to it the gifts others bring when they come to join us, then can we truly "SHARE FROM OUR ABUNDANCE", as Christ commanded. Giving away the seed corn is a BAD way to feed your children.

BINGO!, venerable father. As much as you dislike it you have the winning card.

Eli

I find Andrew's suggestion, which I have heard elsewhere, that the revised liturgy is intended to facilitate the inclusion of non-Ruthenians a dangerous idea. Most of the families in my little parish have come over from the Latin rite. (Indeed, I am one of the few members who actually grew up with the Byzantine rite.) Far and away the most important reason they have come to the Byzantine church is the liturgy: they wished to worship with a traditional liturgy in communion with the Pope of Rome. They are deeply concerned about the proposed changes in the liturgy, especially the dumbed-down language and (so-called) inclusive language. They fear that the Byzantine church is abandoning them and they worry that they may be forced to leave. There is a general sense that the liturgical reformers have not considered them and others like them in making their decisions. If the reformers intended to make the Ruthenian Recension more accessible to non-Ruthenians by their proposals, the reaction in my parish would seem to be evidence that they were mistaken.

Dr. Michael

Ah, Dr. Tkacz (with my respects to your wife.....I'm trying desperately to find a copy of "I, Rachel" again and cannot.....they are totally unavailable! <sob>"............ I must echo and amplify your comment.

It has been my experience over nearly 50 years in the clergy that those who DO come to us from outside DO have a love and respect for the older forms, *especially* including the Slavonic and Greek. Far from making it more attractive by eliminating them, we would be removing one of the most attractive elements OF it.

There is the danger of people who come running FROM something instead of being drawn TO this Church by its own inherent qualities......but THAT is a problem we will always have, regardless of what changes we make to our liturgies, practices and external prayer life. People who run FROM are always dangerous when they get to where they think they're going........

'Nuff said on that.

Thank you, Doctor Tkacz.

Interesting. Great minds and all that.

I received this from one of the priests of the Byzantine Metropolia this morning. In the past he has likened the experience of liturgy to marriage, wherein also there must be mystery or it all goes flat and stale. I know that his words speak directly to my own experience, east and west.

A tree with severed roots will bear no fruit.

Those without a past have no future, either.

I just want the Ruthenians to learn to share, because they don't play well with non-Ruthenians. I hear it's different once you leave the Midwest.

Sadly, they are being abandoned by a Bishop who doesn't like the Ukies or Orthodox and will do anything to distance our church from them.

It is proven, the more traditional you go, the more people are attracted to it. For Catholics, it's really the only option to having a traditional Liturgy without turning Orthodox.

Just read Helen's post in "The Rest of the Story..." on this forum.

Starokatolyk:

You are quite right that there is always the concern about those who are, as you put it, running from something rather than to something. We have had our share of that, as have many other Byzantine parishes.

For the most part, however, those who have come to us from the Latin rite and remained have been those who seek, first, a historically and ritually authentic orthodox Christian ligurgy and, second, theological depth. I am impressed and often humbled by my fellow parishioners who know far less about the history and theology of the faith than I do and yet live it far better than I--and this includes their liturgical life. These are the people whose concerns about the revised liturgy I take very seriously.

I have followed with deep interest the discussions of the revised liturgy on this site. Yet my mind continues to return to thoughts about my fellow parishioners who are quietly caught in the middle of all this. They are fully open to the necessary corrections and restorations in the revised liturgy--so their reactions are hardly knee-jerk rejections of change. At the same time, they recognize mininalism, de-ritualism, and politically-prompted impositions when they see them.

Again, it is not at all clear just how the revisions are supposed to benefit such people.

(By the way, I sent you a private message with information on the Rachel book.)

Dr. Michael

Mercy. I hope I haven't killed the discussion!

I suspect those who want to do strange things to the liturgy will come up with all kids of reasons to justify their stant. Watering down the teachings of the Church is supposed to make them more attractive. It's very insulting to the people of the church but sadly there are those around who are into dumbing down for the laity. The good think is there are many lay people who know their stuff and can stand up from themselves.

some years ago a priest freind told me of a conversation he ahd with some bishops. The bishops were insisting that what ever they were on about the people should just follow their instruction and went on about how they were leaders in the Church etc etc. The priest reminded them that only one bishop in England stood up for the Church, while the rest went into schism and eventually heresy. If the laity had followed their bishops there would be no Catholic Church in England. That shut them up...for awhile.

I think those who love the BCC need to be very careful...if ALL ethnicity is shed and we become an "American Church" doesn't that open the door to where the BCC in America was 100 years ago? When things followed this logic:
"Your Eastern faith is foreign to America".
Soooo...you need to become American
Once you become American Catholics it is clear there is only one American Catholic Church...that happens to be the American Roman Catholic Church...

Ethnicity is not something to shed...However, bringing in others should encompass their ethnic background as well...(I'm NOT suggesting changes to how things are done liturgically or spiritually)...taking an opening hymn in Spanish (or whatever language) when there is are spanish members of the community...Singing Christ is Risen in Spanish...being primarily english but not letting go of peoples ethnicity (in practice this is already done...primarily everything is taken in English with a little Slavonic or Hungarian thrown in...why couldn't another language be substituted if there is a large enough contingency???)...reading the gospel on Pascha in the languages of the ethnic diversity within that specific parish...just some thoughts...