www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy For Us MEN And Our Salvation-Compendium of the Catechism

Dear Recluse,

Where shall we go, and what shall we do? That is a very good question, I wish I knew the answer.

If it was only my opinions, I would be tempted to give in, and say that I must be wrong.

But my pastor is furious with the bishop, and isn't afraid to say so. I won't even quote what he said to some of us, when we asked him about this last week. He said that he's ready to retire early over these new books! But I hope we don't lose our priest over this stupidity. How could it have come to this?

Where shall we go?

I say we stay put. (The renovationists would be happy if we left the Church, and joined other parishes, it would prove that they're right!)

This nonsense is a great challenge to all of us in the Church, to become better educated about our Liturgy and our tradition, and to demand our bishops turn back from this stupid revision.

Fr. Thomas is right, this is only the beginning, this is the moment of opportunity, and we have to see this as something other than the end.

I think this is the firing shot in a great race. The pistol has been fired, but I don't think the ribbon has been awarded yet. Watch and see what happens.

The most important thing, is to stay put, and if you have a voice speak up. If you have a wallet, use it (or don't use it). Study the Liturgy, read the books, and if you can, speak up when you can.

Even bishops sometimes admit that they are wrong, and have made a mistake.

In fact, the Catholic bishops in our country have had a lot of practice at that lately. So maybe our bishops are feeling humbler now, and no longer feel that they are infallible.

Nick

Hi Nick, I understand what you are saying, but I am weary. Will my voice be heard? The secrecy of the revision and the way it was pushed upon us without input was a real kick in the gut. I have been seeing inclusive language coming from Mt St Macrina for years now. In their reprint of the Akathist To The Mother of God, they say that Jesus became "human" instead of "man". One wonders how much influence the nuns at MSM had on the inclusive language in the revision. My point is---why should I invest the rest of my life attempting to participate in a Liturgy that will anger me every time I say the Creed! I believe I will stick this out for a short period, but I do not think the revisionists want my kind in the "new" Ruthenian Church. I do not think they would be sad to see me convert to the Orthodox Church or to find another Eastern "rite".

I can't believe that Rome promulgated this.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Recluse and others who have asked, "Where do we go from here?" in response to what they might find troubling about the new translation of the Liturgy,

Since many people seem to be asking this question and no doubt many more will be asking this question, I would suggest the following for whatever it may be worth:

Think of our Church as a ship that is heading into a storm, the storm that naturally comes with change and transition, for better or for worse. But, we are all ON the ship and so we are all going to go through the storm. However, while we are on the ship in a time of storm, certainly suggestions are made to the "captain" as to the best thing to do. Do we put up the sails? Or do we take down the sails? Do we ride it out? Or do we put in to shore? Or whatever. There is nothng wrong with making our thoughts known to the "captain" during the storm. But the main thing is that we are all still on the ship together and more will be accomplished by staying on the ship during the storm than jumping the ship. Jumping may not actually end up being an improvement for us in the short or long run. There could be sharks in those waters!!

In a mysterious way, the Liturgy belongs to no one yet to everyone. Therefore, any one can make their thoughts known about liturgy to the chief stewards of the Liturgy who of course are our bishops. But, any communication to our bishops should be respectful, charitable and well thought out, well founded and preferably not too lengthy. We cannot be upset just because there is change in itself. Change is probably our greatest fear in the Church even if it is change for the better. We should also give the new books a fair shake and give ourselves a fair shake and allow some time to really experience the new books before reacting.

In addition to expressing what might trouble us, any communication to our "captains" should ultimately offer a postive message, with positive alternatives, suggestions, possibilities. Be honest and affirm what is good and enourage more of it. At the same time we must all be working to preserve unity and strength in our Church. The bishops have asked us to comply with the new translation. We must be obedient. At the same time our bishops want what was is best for our Church and I am confident that they would take into consideration sincere, well founded input from their beloved flock.

I can appreciate the fact that the reaction to the new translation might inspire consternations of conscience and people must do what they believe they must do. I can respect them for that. However, if people leave our Church so soon, when the new translation and pew book has not really been "experienced" yet, this could jeoopradize the receptivity of our "captains" to what could have been legitimate feedback about the new translation. Those who leave at the get-go can discredit themselves and will be seen as uncommitted and fickle. Regrettably our Church might even rejoice that "those trouble makers are gone. We don't need them amyway." BUT I believe that our Church NEEDS the "troublemakers" but in a good sense. As I have posted here many times our Church needs to be able to ask itself some very honest questions during this "Judgment Day" for our Church. It needs radical renewal born of having taken a very, very honest look at itself. This is where "troublemakers" can be very valuable. Just because a "troublemaker" is not popular or welcome does not mean the "troublemaker"
is not still valuable to a Church that needs to look at itself honestly.

Try not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." I would suggest adopting the posture of "compassion" in the deepest sense: to "suffer with" the ship in the storm and work things out together for the greater good.

My father is a son of a Byzantine Catholic priest. My father grew up in the parish house during the years when our parishes were splitting and going into Orthodoxy over such matters as imposed celibacy, trusteeism, etc. As a child my father witnessed "parishioners" physically attacking his priest-father
in the rectory as well as other types of atrocities committed in the name of "Church." You can't imagine the stories I grew up hearing from my father, grandfather, aunts and uncles all in the name of "Church." There has been many dark days for our Church, much worse than a "new translation." But my father still lives for and will die for this Church. Those who stay can make a difference.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.

"I am confident that they would take into consideration sincere, well founded input from their beloved flock."

Why didn't the bishops do this long before promulgating the new Liturgy? I don't see them turning back now....

Dear Fr. Loya:

What if the scenairo you are describing ends up being more like the Titanic, than the Love Boat? Many people who post are wringing their hands over this translation because they understand where we really need to be. These are typically people who "sneak" to an Orthodox church to celebrate Vespers, Matins, and the Hours. Yes, it would be a shame if the "troublemakers" all left, because they would find welcome company from many of the other Byzantines that got tired of waiting and joined the OCA or other Orthodox jurisdictions. You see, this plot never changes, it just drowns on and on. I've spoken to so many former Byzantines who say they left, oh, 20 years-ago after the promises were made by their bishops that things would change. And here we are today, still in the same boat!

What you say is true -- the Byzantine Church needs an explosion of itself. We need to restore not only our Liturgy, but to add Matins, Vespers, Hours, and all the other services that are ignored. But, unfortunately we're not hearing that from our Bishops. We're not hearing, "The Byzantine Church is beginning a renewal and here's the plan...." I agree that most people in the pews don't know their own church, so where's the plan to educate them? The Liturgy is only a first step, and with this revision a bad one at that.

If we strive to be more Orthodox then the "Red Book" is all we need. We all need to celebrate the Red Book, need to say the word Orthodox in the Liturgy, and need to rid ourselves of the remaining Latinizations, even if our church is located east of Ohio. We simply can't wait for another generation to meet their Eternal reward, they may take our church with them.

Fr. Loya:

I would be happy to have you as captain of any ship I was on.

The storm analogy, however, does not quite fit. The storm is exterior to the ship. That might be a good analogy for the persecution our Church experienced under communist rule when Blessed Theodore Romzha was a captain.

Here, however, it is, with all due respect, more like the "captain" leading the ship to a rocky tumultuous sea, and in some sense away from the mother ship of Rome. These seas, the mother ship, in recent times, herself has managed to flee without sinking, but perhaps only because she is of such size and grandure. Our little ship may not be able to navigate Scylla and Charybdis without being swallowed up and may need to be turned off her course before the disaster happens.

I might add that the clergy (the midshipmen) without really being disobedient can be helpful to the laity. Since there are anathemas attached to those who would subtract from the Creed (and those really do have to be taken seriously ), perhaps the clergy could simply ignore the mistranslation in the Creed and do it right. A law which violates God's law, after all, is no law at all.

There is no anathema for slightly deviating from an official promulgation, though I realize it may upset some. And what would the Bishops do? Send out the liturgical police? And since the Byzantine Church has a shortage of priests, they can't very well send you to Siberia, especially if many of you act in concert. And if they do report you to Rome, well, all you need to do is to point to Liturgiam Authenticam.

The Catechism [197], quoting St. Ambrose says:


Let's not allow that seal and treasure to be tampered with.


a sinner and troublemaker

We have experienced parts of the �new music� at St. John Cathedral where we were life long parishioners. We liked it so much we now worship at St. Elias. Many, many parishioners have complained to Archbishop Basil. He is not interested in legitimate feedback. Anyone who even asks a question about the New Byzantine Order is labeled as disobedient and then ostracized. The bishops know people are going to leave. They don't just not care they want us to go. Someone here compared them to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sank. It's worse then that. They are shooting holes in the liturgy that has kept us afloat. Then they push us overboard and say we are to blame.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Etnick and Stephanie,

Great thoughts! During the process of forumalating the new translastion I formally and on more than one occasion registered my concern with the Liturgy commission and with our hierarchs about the inclusive language and the secretive nature of the process. I recommended that rough drafts be sent to the rank and file for input. This is not to suggest "liturgy by vote" or by "popular opinion." But it would have included a most critical dimension (the Sensus Fidelium.) Liturgy is greater than the sum of its parts and the input from the rank and file would have provided that essential part that takes the consideration of liturgy beyond the boundaries of linguistic and historical considerations.

As is now appparant, the hierarchs and commission chose not to send rough drafts to the rank and file. You can make a certain case in favor of this decision on some level. But overall I believe the drafts should have received the input from the rank and file. It seems that the process eventually became its own "tsunami" and it dragged on so long and a much needed new "pew book" was so long awaited that I think the whole new translation process took on a power of its own. Apparantly the "tsunami" left our hierarchs and anyone else involved powerless to reverse the "tsunami." Now it becomes a matter of let's see how the chips fall.

As far as people leaving our Church over this and other related matters, I believe that the perception is that these are only an inconsequential few. Again if our Church dares to be honest with itself, which it must IF it wants to not merely survive but THRIVE, we have to admit to there being an underlying attitude among some of, "We are glad those troublemakers are gone. We don't need them anyway. Good riddens!"

I understand the question, as Etnick, said, "why would our bishops listen now if they did not before?" But I still think it is vitaly important for our bishops to hear from the rank and file but it cannot be just knee-jerk, and emotional. Be charitable, forthright, and offer positive, life-giving alternatives.

Another insight into the inclusive language agenda: Much of this is a generational thing. Just by the simple fact of age, (people in their 50's-60's)the generation that was formed during the 1960's and 1970's is in a sense "in power." They are, across America, the ones who are bishops, seminary rectors, etc., etc. The things that were happening both good and bad in the 1960's were very formative because they were revolutionary-like in character. Those who were in seminary, convents, etc. during that time carry with them today a sense of having gone through a battle to improve the world, a kind of revolution that has ushered in a "better way" of thinking. They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world. It was the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II mixed in with secular humanism that profoundly influenced this generation during a very formative time in their development. Because the spirit during this time was so revolutionary it left indelible marks on the perspective of this generation. Today, this generation is essentially "in power" and getting to the age where they too will be stepping down, moving on, retiring, etc. So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.

The fact that these were such revolutionary and formative years has left certain blind spots in this generation and they cannot understand why everyone does not think like they do. For instance, the perception that inclusive language was an imperative for our Church and therefore for the new translation is a classic example of a blind spot. There was no imperative on the pastoral level,(the most important level) for inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Inclusive language was deemed imperative by a few. (I want to again reiterate, lest I be misunderstood, that one reason why I am against inclusive language is because it is actually insulting to women as it ultimately strikes at the intrinsic dignity of womanhood. But to understand this we have to ascribed to the Church's theological anthropology which is actually revealed in our liturgy but which is being left unexplored in favor of secular humanism.)

The fact, is, some of these "causes" are in a sense trite. What was cutting edge during the 1960's and 1970's is now "old fashion" to the younger generation. The younger generation does not share these same 1960's "causes." But this is not because the younger people are more "conservative" or "unenlightened" as the 1960's generation would view them. I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books. Do you see, now what I mean about the 1960's "causes" becoming outdated? Rather than being cutting edge, they are actually out of touch--the worst nightmare of the 1960's generation worldview!

Now don't me get me wrong. There were many great things about the 1960's generation. But there were definitely blind spots because of the intensity of the social revolution that took place and which regretablly spilled over into the Church. As I will always maintain, our journey is vertical into our best selves, not horizontal into what everyone else is doing whom we think must always have a better idea. This inferiority complex is the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate Churches" which is a constant struggle for us to overcome and which I believe accounts for all of our problems.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB. MA.

They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world.

Dear Fr. Tom,

You really hit the nail on the head here. As a 55-year old "baby-boomer", I can take a certain amount of pride in the fact that I have ALWAYS OPPOSED that crowd, whether in the area of politics, or more importantly, in the life of the Church. I left the Latin Church because that element had ascended to power, and suceeded in doing great damage in the area of Liturgy, Catechetics, and Theology. I had not perceived the Byzantine Church to have also been in their grasp, thinking that we had somehow not been effected by the "culture war" which they (the "progressivists") were waging. I guess that I was wrong, at least to some extent. I find it absolutely gut-wrenching to see the Basilians (esp. the Superior) at Uniontown NOW catching up with the 60's and tossing their habits (not to mention their use of stilted inclusive language in communal prayer). We've got to reverse all this,and I'm on board with those who want to stay in and fight for authentic Byzantine Catholicism.

In Christ,
Deacon Robert

So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.

Let us hope and pray that it is a "last gasp".

Dn. Robert

Dear Fr. Loya,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out response, and for taking our concerns seriously. It's nice to have someone in the clergy understand what we are going through. While we may not like what is happening, you explaination makes sense. My only concern is, while we wait for this political storm to pass, many "younger" parishioners may not weather the storm.

Father Tom,

Your post sums up the problems with new liturgy. Thank you.

1 Th 5:21

PS: Can everyone PLEASE stop referring to it as a "new translation"? Calling it a "new translation" suggests faithfulness to the original text. That simply isn't true. It is a Revised Liturgy. Even the bishops have admitted that.

OK - so now everyone has agreed - the question still is

what are you going to do ?

Being a Roman Catholic, the only thing I can do is to stop giving any kind of support (except my personal prayer) to your Church.

I'm gonna finish my Gatorade 355ml drink and continue reading, that's what I'm gonna do! -hey you asked