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

I am sorry for being so skeptical, but I just revisited an old book I once read called "Goodbye Good Men." After revisiting this book things just become clearer to me.

At the UGCC I go to there are no spoken Liturgies.

Sunday, for the Theophany we were there for 4 hours (including the luncheon afterwards.) I am assuming at least 1 1/2 hours for the Divine Liturgy (with 4 Litanies [is that what they are called]) and at least another half hour to 45 minutes for the Blessing of the Waters.

Maybe St. Nicholas Eparchy of Chicago does things this way, or maybe it's the few priests I know that do things this way, or since I've never been to an Orthodox Church I wouldn't know the difference anyway.

But the priest always follows the 1988 "missal" (is that what it's called?) And Divine Liturgy always is over 1 1/2 hours if not 2 hours long.

My point... I don't know if I have one, I'm just sharing my experiences at the UGCC. Now the Ruthenian mission that I have attended usually is done in less than an hour. But I haven't been there since the Sunday after Easter, and the priest is bi-ritual. So that may make a difference.

I actually asked about this a while ago in another thread. My question was why given the similarities between the two, hadn't the Melkites opened missions at the same rate as the Antiochian Orthodox. The main reason given was that there aren't enough priests (tied I think to the closing of the one Melkite seminary in the United States) and that Catholic hierarchs would not be comfortable with lay led missions (which does happen in Orthodoxy). It's even harder for me to understand because according to this:


http://melkite.org/sa79.htm

It seems there is a great need for missions to serve just the existing base of Melkites, let alone converts. Also this says


http://www.melkite.org/sa54.htm

Which led me to ask if the Melkites are actually contracting, but nobody was able to answer that question. Lastly, this article says


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_n4_v54/ai_14983093/print

I think without such a fund their ability to expand or open missions would be further hampered.

It seems like starting a mission would be very difficult, if not impossible, so I'm not sure what a Ruthenian would do who for instance lived near where I do. The nearest Melkite church is about 3 and 1/2 hours away, and the UGCC churches near me AFAIK are very, very Latinized.

This is just my two cents but I think the root of all of these problems is communion with Rome. Being subordinate to the beauracracy of the Latin Church and being in competition with the Latin Church is what hampers the eastern Catholic Churches. And it seems to me, that the Roman Church still wants its thumb on the eastern Churches, no matter what beautiful things the Popes say in their encyclicals. I could say a lot more but that would involve hijacking the thread, and I don't want to do that. To keep things in line with the thread, I will just say that the eastern Catholic Churches are so overwhelmed by the size and power of their Latin rite counterparts in the U.S., that the culture of the Latin Church (constant liturgical revision, dumbing down the Liturgy, having only celibate priests, distrust and disrespect of the laity, etc.) is bound to influence and impose itself on the eastern Catholic churches whenever it can do so. If the Vatican permits the Bishops of the Latin Church in the U.S. to keep the English translation of the Nicene Creed which omits "for us men" then that will be the sign of things to come for the eastern Catholic Churches. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Marc, all I can say is that Slavonic has too few supporters out where I am to be used. Whenever my priest or I try Slavonic the congregation goes silent, except for 1 or 2 cradle Byzantines. Apparently not everyone is interested in learning it, because they don't even talk about it at social hour afterwards, or ask about doing it more. Our temporary paperback pew books don't even have Slavonic in them as a result, and there have been no complaints that I am aware of.

I could advise my cradle parishioners that they might find it rewarding to attend services at your parish when they are back east. Let me know what BCC parish if you want me to do that.

By the way, in looking at my last post, it may appear that I am proselytizing for Orthodoxy. I am not intentionally doing so and I've no intention of violating the rules of the forum. I was just expressing what I think is the root of the liturgical revision problem. The thoughts expressed were the same ones I had as a Melkite. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I've talked to two priests in the Passaic Eparchy so far who plan to continue having Slavonic liturgies, probably using the 1978 Levkulic books just for the Slavonic, although both expressed a preference for a booklet with the common hymns and troparia in Slavonic, with music.

I do think the hierarchs should clarify both the issue of Slavonic (or Spanish, etc.) in the Liturgy, and the option of taking additional litanies and antiphon verses.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

The day of the Holy See's approval of the new liturgy is March 31, 2001. The date of Liturgiam Authenticam is May 7, 2001. The date of "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal" is March 16, 2002. This documents states:

"This text �"For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive."

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

It appears that some documents have crossed in the mail or else the Creed which should unite the Roman and Greek Churches, really is different.

Dear Joe,

Do you think it is the Latin Church as a whole that is the problem or the 'Americanist branch' of the Latin Church?

In my opinion the Latin Church as a whole is moving toward Tradition and Patristics, meanwhile the majority in the US (the vast minority compared to the whole Latin Church) are fighting the trend, kicking and screaming, save a handful of orthodox bishops (like His Grace, Bishop Fabian).

For more information on the Americanist heresy [are.as.wvu.edu], please read this article. Please notice the same players involved who caused the schism within the early Greek Catholic Church in the United States.

Michael Thoma,

Let me read that essay and I'll get back to you. It looks interesting. I have to go prepare for a class in a few minutes. I don't want to make any further comments since I think it leads the thread away from discussing the revised liturgy itself. Also, because I think that if I were to set down what I think (for what it is worth, which may not be much) it would involve a very long and complicated post. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Jeff, I'm with you on that clarification. I'm afraid that some will use this as an excuse to rid the US Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church of an ancient and honorable language.

I can see it would be a bit difficult to be either:
a) a parishoner who doesn't know any Slavonic in a parish where Slavonic is used
or
b) a priest who doesn't know Slavonic in a parish were Slavonic is used or where folks want it used

I understand this. It won't stop me from arguing in favor of keeping it in use, if only in a few places.

Last time I was at a Latin church and the choir sang the Sanctus or Agnus Dei, no one flipped out.

On the contrary, if we were truly being faithful to Rome, we would not be making legalistic arguments that the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (which I have no doubt that it did through Fr. Taft's influence) has approved the new liturgy. Rome is not the problem. Following Rome and the Ruthenian Recension is the solution.

Well, well. I definitely want a copy of the edition-to-be-promulgated of this interesting liturgical text. It will go on my shelf, directly adjacent to my copy of the Slovak Liturgikon promulgated in 1986 - and now forbidden for use, as a direct result of numerous protests from Greek-Catholics in many different countries.

Just for the record, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church permits Divine Liturgy in such languages as Greek, Church-Slavonic, English, Spanish, probably Portuguese, and other languages as needed - including, of course, modern Ukrainian. People who have contributed postings lamenting that the English Liturgy in this or that Ukrainian Greek-Catholic parish is recited, not sung, might consider organizing a group of chanters or even a choir; such enthusiasm is apt to prove contagious (as any number of authors have testified, good music attracts people to Church).

A word of caution: someone who desires to join any Church is well advised to give positive reasons for his attraction to that Church, not negative reasons for wanting to jump ship.

Meanwhile, others who prefer to stay put but do not care for this liturgical imposition might consider carefully written letters to the proper people in Rome. That succeeded in the case of the Slovak Liturgikon mentioned above.

Or, of course, everyone could move to Dublin!

Fr. Serge

You know, I just spoke to a Melkite Priest who wonders the same things as you do JS. He thinks that we are a pain in the side of Rome, and that by not uniting all the eastern churches it weakens us, and over time we will eventually get smaller and smaller until there is nothing left. He thinks the "two lungs" reference by Rome is just a bunch of hooey. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another way to do away with the Eastern churches. They couldn't Latinize us enough, so they've got to try something else....maybe this is the something else. I suspect if we appealed to Rome we would be told they couldn't do anything because we're a Sui Iuris church. It's the classical catch-22.

ByzCat wrote:
But we do have all of this, it's called the 1964 Liturgikon, a.k.a the Red Book. Right? (admittedly, it needs a few corrections.) And, I was told by a Ruthenian Priest from Europe that the Rubrics are perfect. So what's the problem?

what's wrong is this

That , if I have read it correctly, means only English may be used and only this particular version .