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

AMM wrote: "How can the church be truly Eastern and autonomous with this sort of dependence on the western church?" It is not that we are dependant on the Western Church, but we are in communion with the Pope of Rome who has a universal ministry within the whole Church. It is a very Eastern thing to turn to the Pope as arbiter in disputes. When many of the heresies or other disputes emerged in the Eastern Churches, the position of the Pope of Rome was valued and considered normative. I think we need an intervention by the Holy See as there is no other course to take in our own particular Church.

Here is my suggestion - if recourse to your own hierarchy is ineffective, write first to the Patriarchs of the other Byzantine Liturgical Churches (Catholic first of course) - Patriarch Gregorios of the Melkites, Patriarch Cardinal Husar of the Ukrainians, even the Metropolitans and Bishops of your sister Orthodox Churches who are willing to intercede in friendship (ACROD, for example).

While the other autonomous Church hierarchs may agree with you in principle, I don't think they are as well versed in Byzantine theology or liturgics to confidently comment.

Perhaps this approach will ultimately convince, or even shame those who wish to go off on their own tangents.

Concerning the Congregation of the Oriental Churches “Approval” of the Revised Liturgy

The Vatican Website (www.vatican.va [vatican.va]) under Roman Curia, Oriental Congregation tells us that “…regular issues are dealt with by His Eminence Cardinal Ignace Moussa Daoud, assisted by the Secretary His Excellency Antonio Maria Vegli� and by the Undersecretary Mons. Krzystof Nitkiewicz in collaboration with the Officials and Consultors.”

If you look at each of the three highest ranking persons in this Congregation, none is a native English speaker. The present Prefect of the Oriental Church Congregation is Cardinal Daoud is a native of Syria; the Secretary Bishop Antonio Maria Veglio is Italian, and the Undersecretary is Slovak.

In his Decree of Promulgation, dated 6 Jan. 2007, Metropolitan Basil states that “The Apostolic See granted this approval under protocol number 99/2001, dated 21 March, 2001.” The Prefect at the time would have been Cardinal Ignace Moussa Daoud who became the Prefect on 24 November 2000, and his Secretary at the time was Fr. Miroslav Stefan Marusyn of the Ukraine. Again, both of these do not have English as their first language (or second language?). They must have depended on underlings.

The paragraph above from the Vatican website says that the Prefect, Secretary and Undersecretary work “in collaboration with Officials and Consultors”. Was the matter of our new translation entrusted to the Consulters? Which ones/one? It would seem logical, but was the work of the consulters critically reviewed by those the authorities who finally "signed off" on it.

I surmise that both Cardinal Daoud and Fr. Miroslave would not have considered themselves experts in the area of Liturgy much less in an English translation of the Liturgy. Is it probable that a Syrian or a Ukrainian would have strongly directed or even suggested that something such as “inclusive language” be imposed on the liturgical texts? I believe their mistake was to rely on their consulters. Many think the primary consulter was the Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft, who is both an expert on liturgics and a native English speaker.

If the Congregation actually did give its ok to the translation and revision of the structure of the Liturgy, it is probably because it was "rubber stamped" as too much trust was given to the judgment of aforementioned Jesuit or other consulters.

As a Latin Rite member of a BCC parish, I will do what I can to assist my pastor and bishop to implement the revised liturgy successfully. That said,

1) this is at best a major distraction. There is no pressing need to fix the current text nor is there any need to revise the music.

2) the correct translation of anthropos is man. We can only hope that this will be fixed and fixed soon. There is however no intent to change the faith, just a craven obeisance to a feminist agenda which many of the faithful resist for good reasons.

3) the future of the BCC lies in an ever fuller expression of the Byzantine Rite. But the revision clearly alienates the people most strongly committed to restoring that rite in its fullness. And it can only be accomplished from the bottom up by this very group.

CRW I agree with your statements. Then why go out of your way to assist your "pastor and bishop to implement the revised liturgy successfully." That's what they want. Pray, pay and obey, don't think?

Question...if & how the revised liturgy will effect the Divine Office/Horologion-Book of Hours as the revisions(the liturgy is linked to the Divine Office) have done in the West(Divine Office,Breviary,Liturgy of the Hours) ?

james

James,

The common parts like the Litanies would follow the new translation. Other than the Litanies and troparia the prayers and hymns are different and I am not sure what the IELC has translated other than Sunday Vesper Stichera.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There is no official English translation of the Ruthenian Horologion.

The Cantor Institute prepared (fairly complete) books for Sunday Vespers and Matins, following the official Slavonic books; these books used the translations from the Liturgy Commission where these were available, but dropped a lot of the more explicit "inclusive language" ("Lover of Humankind", "Blessed is the one", "bread that strengthens the heart of all") from the Uniontown books.

Books for Sunday and Daily Vespers, Great and Small Compline, and Sunday Matins are available on the MCI website. There is certainly no plan to "revise" the Horologion as the Monks of New Skete did, etc., and the MCI books follow the text and rubrics of the official books quite closely.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

The posts cover 12 pages now, so I decided to look at the church affiliations on the public profiles of the users posting:

39 Forum users have actually posted so far on this thread. Of the 39, 13 say they are Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian), or 1 in 3. 10 show no specific affiliation. Others posting as near as I can make out without putting words in their mouths: ROCOR, UGCC, Catholic, RC, Eastern Orthodox, ACROD, Byzantine (Latin Rite), Orthodox, Eastern in Communion with Rome, Melkite.

What conclusions can be drawn from this information? Some folks prefer to be anonymous for one reason or another, others have no really immediate stake in this issue except for how they think it may impact their own hierarchy in the future. If there are only 13 BCC members after 12 pages of messages, then there may not even BE a big issue within the BCC itself.

I wish I knew who said: "In God we trust; all others bring data."
Just don't shoot the messenger.

Jim,

Most BCC's don't visit this forum. So, its impossible to speculated on the laities thoughts based upon the postings in this thread.

Dear Jim,

Perhaps the comparison is a stretch, but "homoousios" was only an issue with a small number of Christians in the fourth century. And yet, it made all the difference.

Jim, my name is Luke Macik. I changed from the Roman Rite seven years ago to the Byzantine Ruthenian Rite. My mother and her thirteen siblings were the children of immigrants from Slovakia who were Byzantine. My wife, who was a little reluctant to change rites, asked then Bishop George whether the Byzantines had the same problems as the Roman Rite. He said (honestly I think), "No." He also stated that Roman Church was concerned with political and social issues, but that the Byzantines were first concerned with a beautiful Divine Liturgy and that because of that the social issues would take care of themsleves. That was sufficient for my wife. My wife and I do not regret changing rites, but we're also not going to accept the errors which are being given to us.

Although I am the only canonically Byzantine Catholic in my town, there are now about six families (about 45 men, women and children) here that travel 130 miles round-trip to attend the Byzantine Church in Albuquerque about once a month. We are building a chapel in the mountains near our town where we have hosted, for the last four years, the "Alive in Christ" Byzantine Ascetical Boot Camp as we call it (a 3 night, 4 day Byzantine wilderness experience for young boys and young men to develop vocations) in conjunction with the vocations office for the Eparchy of Van Nuys. At that camp, these boys and young men learn all about their Byzantine heritage and participate in its liturgical life and fasting in fabulous wilderness setting. Last year we had 100 attendees with fathers and sons from around the west and mid-west. This requires lots of planning and effort thoughout the year.

None of us here(wives and daughters included) want inclusive language. I don't know what will happen here when the New Liturgy is promulgated, but I'm sure it will have an effect because it smacks of modernism which is not what is attracting people to the Byzantine Church.

Jim

Remember that some of us have been through this sort of thing in the past

We recognise the unhappiness we see and read - we hope to encourage you with our past/present experiences.

It is just possible - that there may well be far more reaction when folk have a copy of it in their hands and have had time to study the latest supposedly final authoritative version.

Excuse me, I should have said 130 miles one way.

Anhelyna,

You hit the nail on the head...

" It is just possible - that there may well be far more reaction when folk have a copy of it in their hands and have had time to study the latest supposedly final authoritative version."

I see the same in the West...

james