www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Real renewal for the BCC

I really want to see the church I left survive. My Father and Mother belong to it. They brought me into it, but I did what I felt was right by converting to the Orthodox church. I continue to pray for the Greek Catholic Church to get with it, do what's right, and spread the word of the Christian East.

Since my name was invoked - with regard to the selling of pre-cut particles of bread for use in the pseudo-Prothesis - perhaps I may comment.

The selling of bread crumbs is not in itself shocking or immoral. What is outrageous is the use of pre-cut particles for the Divine Liturgy instead of loaves of prosphora or a reasonable equivalent.

The assertion that Saint John Chrysostom himself personally wrote the rubrics for the Divine Liturgy has no conceivable basis in fact - take it from a Typiconchik and rubricist.

The use of various particles on the Discarion is different in any number of sources and current practices (check the Old Rite service-books or the pre-Nikonian Kyivan service books for examples). It is probable, although not quite certain, that the currently more common arrangement dates from well after the beginning of the 2nd millennium - the texts we have from before that period only give the prayer "O God, our God, Heavenly Bread and Food for the whole world . . .". That is not an argument for something which I once - and thank God it was only once - beheld with my very own eyes: the priest at the last minute in the sacristy reaching into a plastic container, taking one hard-as-rock square bit of bread, putting it on the Discarion, pausing at the Prothesis Table to put some wine and water in the chalice, veil chalice and Discarion, and then went straight to the Holy Table. I won't name him.

Fr. Serge

If it doesn't, I don't think you can look anywhere but the leadership of the church. Whether or not anyone outside the BCC wants it to survive, doesn't want it to survive, or is just oblivious I think doesn't matter.

Father and Father,

I have read your posts with interest especially as they call into question my own spiritual journey. Am I somehow being unfaithful to the Eastern spiritual tradition by coming into communion with the Pope of Rome and living my priestly life in submission to the bishop of the Eparchy of Parma? This a good and honest and important question. I want to leave aside the question of whether one can be Orthodox and in communion with Rome and address the issue of whether I have sold my Orthodox liturgical birthright for a bowl of Latinized soup.

I can answer this two ways. First, on an experiential level. In my experience over the last 5 months, I have experienced beautiful Eastern Christian/Orthodox worship that is as worshipful and attentive to rubrics as any that I experienced in the Orthodox churches in which I prayed. Now I know the horror stories -- but let's be honest, similar horror stories can be found on the internet about people's experiences in Antiochian, Greek, ACROD, OCA liturgical services. So to be honest, I don't put much stock by them. Parishes have history and often the history constrains contemporary liturgical practice. It takes a long time to get rid of the western icon dedicated by the founder of the church who fled Russia with icon hidden under his coat, etc. My point is first, I have not found them to be true of my experience of worship in the Ruthenian Church. In fact, to my surprise what I have found is a level of congregational involvement that I have not experienced in any form of Orthodox/Eastern Christian worship. (I have been to Orthodox Churches where all of the singing is done by a cantor and/or choir and the laypeople just sort of stand there listening like they were at a choir concert.) The level of congregational involvement shocked me the first time I visited -- everyone was singing and not just singing quietly, they were singing loudly. The little church I was in was awash with the praises of God's people. It made me weep and more than anything else it was this experience that convinced me that I was home.

Second, on a historical level, I wonder what era of "Orthodox worship, liturgics and experience" the Byzantine Catholic Church should be striving to replicate. Fr Thomas Hopko has recently written of the 11 distinct "Orthodoxies" that are vying for preeminence in the American Orthodox world. His comments are very apro-pro to this discussion:



Which one of these should the Byzantine Catholic Church be striving to emulate? Or, should rather, the Byzantine Catholic Church finally start to be herself -- to stop looking over her shoulder trying to be like them or not like them and instead to simply live her Eastern Christian/Orthodox spiritual life? This is why as a new member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, I am so excited about the new liturgy. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the fact that it exists proves that the Church is alive and that she is living her life. As one who has been drawn to the light that full communion with the Latin Church expresses, I can honestly say that the existence of the new Divine Liturgy confirms this experience and gives me peace.

In Christ,

Fr John Mack

Here is the link for the Fr Hopko piece:

http://www.ocanews.org/Hopko8.18.06.html

How about we emulate Ruthenian Byzantine Christians?

They have their own liturgical books and everything!

Rome has directed us to follow the Ruthenian books....

Ruthenians and Ukrainians in Europe agree and mandated them as normative....

And now our bishops prohibit us from using them....

The Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church cannot start to be herself so long as she is embarrassed about who she is.

This new imitation of Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism does not help us to become who we are supposed to be.

With all due respect, are you serious? The liturgical reforms which are initiated in the new Revised Divine Liturgy have all been advocated by Eastern/Orthodox liturgical scholars. Have you ever read Fr Alexander Schmemmann? No one spoke more firmly against the "Western Captivity" of the Orthodox tradition -- yet most of the changes in the new Liturgy are advocated and/or suggested as alternative possibilities in his writings.

As has already been pointed out in this forum, many Latinisms have been outlawed by the new Liturgy. Now you may not like the changes, you may not like Fr Alexander Schmemann, etc. but to accuse him of being "post-Vatican II" is just nonsense. (And I am trying to be charitable.)

There is another thread in the new service books: the bishops are establishing a "parish standard" with fewer abbreviations than has been the custom in most of our parishes for the past 50 years. It's true that this standard is lower than that in some parishes, but it is for the bishops to decide how far to raise the standard at any given time - and while is had been claimed and hinted here that the bishops have forbidden the use of litanies and verses omitted from the common service books, no one has presented any evidence that this is the case.

The availability of texts with music, the Beatitudes, weekday and saints' commons are all a good thing. Similarly, in some places the bishops are calling for us to use liturgical texts INSTEAD of non-liturgical or para-liturgical ones; the post-Vatican II Latin Rite went in precisely the opposite direction.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Quite serious.

What do you have against the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy?

When done correctly it enlivens the Church.

One can find liturgical scholars who advocate anything.

Father Alexander Schmemann � Memory Eternal! � was a wonderful man.

Which Orthodox Churches have mandated his ideas?

Rome has learned not to trust liturgical reform to liturgy professionals.

Neither should we.

Most latinizations were first outlawed in the 1940s.

We did not need a new Liturgy to address them.

I never mentioned Father Schmemann�.

And less we underemphasize the obvious -- it is all in English!

As one who first began trying to pray in English when the only texts that were widely available for use in English were the "5-pounder" (Nassar) and Hapgood, I rejoice in the fullness of liturgical texts that are now available in English because of the Ruthenian Church. Thank God!

Mr. Mierzejewski,

You know quite well that it was not necessary to rewrite the Divine Liturgy in order to establish a standard with fewer abbreviations.

Promulgating the Ordo Celebrationis was all that was necessary.

Could you please stop acting as the Liturgy needed a rewrite to establish a standard?

Dostojno Jest

I know you are new to our Church.

Have you ever seen the 1964 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy?

It's in English.

The rubrics are accurate.

The language is decent.

The new Liturgicon is not complete. It is missing parts. To say it is the fullness of the Liturgy is incorrect.

Dear DJ,

I am certainly not intending to say that a rewrite was required. But many here act as if the bishops one day decided to shorten the liturgy by 30% or something, when that is certainly not the case; many parishes will experience a longer Divine Liturgy. On the other hand, there is a persistent claim here that the bishops forbade the use of a fuller service, but no evidence of that has been presented.

I agree with you that the newly-promulgated Liturgikon should be more complete than it is - and in fact that the bishops should simply promulgate the Ordo, and give permission (or even recomment) certain variations, such as the singing aloud of the Anaphora. But to the extent that many Orthodox claim that "the work of councils must be accepted by the church", the 1941 Ordo never really was accepted by Greek Catholics in North America. Any chance now (such as has been made since by the Ukrainians) will have a better change of happening if (a) the bishops understand we want it and why, and (b) they can count on our support - perhaps against some of their own clergy - if they should promulgate the Ordo. Threats and incorrect claims of what they HAVE done are not likely to avail.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Is Christ present in the new Liturgy? If He is, then the fullness is there.

By what standard?

Our official standard. The official standard prepared by Rome at the request of our bishops and promulgated in 1942.

By whose typicon?

Ours. The Typicon of the Ruthenian Church. If one removes the outright latinizations it is not really different than that of the Russian Church.

Which edition of the Liturgy in what year?

The 1942 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom we share with Ukrainian Catholics and everyone else.

The 1964 English translation is quite good.

A common translation with other Ruthenians would be great!

The Typicon is the Typicon of the Ruthenian Church. If one removes the outright latinizations it is not really different than that of the Russian Church.

The Latinizers have used this excuse for generations to justify all kinds of practices.

They use it today to rally against the standard.