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

Dear PrJ,

I recommend that you read Fr. Schmemann's book "The Eucharist." To think in terms of "validity" and to say that a liturgy has the fulness because it is valid is to fall into a trap.

Surely we would never just have an anaphora without the liturgy of the catechumens (liturgy of the word), would we? Perhaps the connection is more essential than accidental.

This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Since I recommended Schmemann it must be obvious that I have read his books

To talk about "fullness" is not to talk about "validity" but to remind us that the point of the liturgy is Christ Himself. So, let me ask you, when Fr George Calciu prayed the liturgy by himself in a Romanian prison with a few crumbs of bread -- when he had no texts and prayed what he could remember from the Liturgy -- when he offered the bread on the altar of his own body (since there was no altar present) -- was Christ present? If so, then that liturgy contained the "fullness" even if it was (from a liturgical standpoint) missing some "parts".

Father, bless.

I think we can agree that in that situation, his abundant faith made up for any unintentional errors. We would not want to hold the liturgy he performed up as the ideal for all in normal parish situations to emulate, though. His is an exception. It is worth noting, but it isn't what we should be basing the standard on. Don't you agree?

I haven't seen anyone act as if the bishops one day decided to shorten the liturgy by 30%, your statement is specious. The liturgy that Rome told us to use was never obeyed by our past Bishops for decades and our current Bishops did the same, everyone knows that. Now they've promulgated a feminized version of the chopped up version they were using complete with incorrect translations. Why do you try to make it that the Bishops are doing us all a favor and an Orthodox one at that with this new liturgy? They won't even let us use the word Orthodox during the liturgy.


Metropolitan Basil's letter stated the following:
"From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui Juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A."

That quote seems to say that the new liturgy is it.
Are you saying that we can still use the Red Book with the correct Creed in it? If yes, then a lot of the negative animus could be quickly remediated. Unlike a plethora other questions that I have asked that have gone unanswered please answer this one.

Does the New Liturgy move us:
a) closer
b) further

from unity with the Orthodox?

I'll await your response

Monomakh

I will answer this one -- neither. The issue that is keeping the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic apart has little to do with how the liturgy is celebrated. Orthodoxy has a plethora of liturgical practices and varies greatly in its liturgical celebrations. The Greeks do it one way, the Russians another and the Arabs a third. Local parish practice differs even more than the Typika. So in the normal Greek, Vespers (when it is prayed in the parish on Saturday evenings) is prayed on Saturday evening and then Orthros/Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. The Greeks do not ordinarily use the Litany of the Catechumen, etc. In OCA parishes, Vespers is prayed on Saturday -- sometimes Vigil -- and then usually the Hours are prayed before the Liturgy on Sunday morning. Etc. Each Orthodox jurisdiction has its own English translation of the Liturgy and thus each prayer is said differently, and each time the Creed is said different words are used. Even the Lord's Prayer varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In other words, liturgical uniformity is not an issue.

Once again, that which separates the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholic is a different ecclesiological theology. The issue is theology -- no matter how close the Byzantine Catholics come to the "Orthodox liturgy" (if such a thing exists), it will not change the question of unity until the ecclesiological issue is resolved.

I think sometimes Byzantine Catholics have this idea that if they can just look exactly like the Orthodox and sound exactly like the Orthodox, somehow unity will naturally follow. It won't. The issue is theological and can only be resolved theologically.

Once the theological issue is resolved, I would assume that each local Eparchy would continue to do its own "liturgical" services using the texts of that Eparchy and that the diversity of Orthodox liturgical practices would enlarge even more!

PrJ,

Why do you disagree and dismiss what +Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have told Greek Catholics when they've told us to return to our Orthodox roots?

Monomakh

I don't -- however, I am making two points:

1) It is not at all clear to me that returning to "our Orthodox roots" means doing things like contemporary Orthodox do them? I am not sure that everything in the Orthodox world is an accurate reflection of what the Popes mean by "our Orthodox roots". This is what Fr Hopko is saying -- what roots are you talking about? 1st century Orthodox roots, 2nd century Orthodox roots, 6th century Orthodox roots, 17th century Orthodox roots, 20th century Orthodox roots ... It is not so simple.

2) I agree with Fr. David that the call to return to our Orthodox roots must be disaligned from the discussion of Orthodox-Catholic unity. I think it is an illusion to think that if the Byzantine Catholic would just be more like the Orthodox, then union would happen. I don't think it will.

I think you're right there!

Yes you do.


Don't play coy as if to say I'm not sure what century you're referring to so that's my excuse for 90%+ of our churches ignoring Vespers and Matins. It's very simple. Restore Vespers, Matins, celebrate the Great Canon, get rid of Saturday evening liturgies, implement the liturgy that Rome gave us decades ago, put up icon screens, get rid of Latinizations,etc.
You'll be closer to all of those centuries that you mentioned above than you are now and with the new debacle of a liturgy. You and I both know that.

But I can play your cute little game too. Okay, since it is so confusing as to what century we should go with, I reject the revised liturgy's music. Supporters have told me that it is more Traditional. But to what century. The 19th, 15th, 12th, or when Prince Vladimir accepted Christianity for the Slavs in 988. Therefore what we have now is fine and should stay because it is confusing as to what our traditional music is.



This one made me laugh. Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have bent over backwards and done everything they can to foster unity with the Orthodox. Pope Benedict desperately wants to go to Moscow. He just visited Constantinople. Pope JPII went to Ukraine, went to Greece, Bulgaria, etc. They've repeatedly stated it is their goal to have unity with the Orthodox. Meanwhile, they've told us to return to our Orthodoxy and Traditions. Gee, do you think there is a coincidence there, maybe a direct correlation? You'd rather agree with Father David?

If we are just like them will unity automatically happen, no other obstacles have to be overcome, but you can't seriously think that it would hinder it and wouldn't help.

And let's get this thread back on track.

How can Archbishop Basil expect us to take his statement of 'an authentic place of worship' seriously when:

90%+ of our churches do not celebrate Vespers

90%+ of our churches do not celebrate Matins

90%+ of our churches will not celebrate the Great Canon the first week of the Great Fast

our Bishops support feminized gender inclusive language

our new and improved Creed will not only mistranslate words, but omit them entirely to appease feminists.

90%+ of our churches have Saturday evening liturgies

the majority of our churches kneel on Sundays.

do I need to go on?

The above reasons are just a few of the reasons why the Orthodox will not take us seriously and preclude unity in direct contradiction to the Pope himself.

I know that, you know that, and our Bishops know that, except I'm the only one who will stand up and say it and not live in denial and with hollow words.

Monomakh

Byzkat said: "Similarly, in some places the bishops are calling for us to use liturgical texts INSTEAD of non-liturgical or para-liturgical ones" .

I have been chanting psalms at communion, also after liturgy, for some time now, with the congregation replying alleluia in the appropriate tone after each couplet. Even though it made carrying a book to communion unnecessary, some folks missed the para-liturgical hymns, so we do both now. First, after "Let me this day", the psalm, then some hymns. It seems to work to everyone's benefit, except visitors who have no book to refer to for the hymns. I'm hoping that a para-liturgical hymnal will eventually emerge for use as well- for before or after services, and during communion.

I don't agree with this. And I thank our Bishops for having the courage to lead the Church in the direction they believe God wants the Church to go. (As my wife remarked, "What Bishop would want to bring this kind of stress into his life?") I am very happy and pleased to be in a Church where Bishops exercise leadership.

You can disagree with me. I respect that. But please don't impute thoughts or beliefs to me that I do not have.

Yes. I disagree with you.

PrJ,

I suggest you read this:

From the Liturgical Instruction:

21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage
Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, <Orientalium Ecclesiarum> (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage.

In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.[26]


Monomakh

Given my rather intimate and personal knowledge of the diversity of practice that exists within the Orthodox churches in the English speaking world, I am quite confident that the new liturgy fulfills this requirement completely.

I have personally witnessed absolutely every change recommended or adopted in the new liturgy in an Orthodox parish. Thus there is nothing in it that I can see that is not in line with at least one version of Orthodox liturgical practice.

Thanks for sharing it. It confirms my commitment to following the directions of the Bishops and validates my thanksgiving to God for bringing me in my spiritual journey to the Eparchy of Parma where I can fulfill my priesthood in its eastern catholic/orthodox fullness.

Thanks!

This is in keeping with the Articles of Brest, which probably would not specifically apply to the Ruthenians of Pittsburgh (who were not a party to it) but might be considered binding on the entire Recension if that first agreement was used as a model for the admission of the others.

Article 2
That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three, that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own language.

Article 31
And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion.

Article thirty one seems to indicate a fervent desire among the bishops to continue to maintain a common set of rites and practices with the separated brethren. In that if ever there should be further unions these would not be regarded as two Greek churches, but one. The Uniate church should mirror the non-Uniate counterpart.

Ideally the churches should work very hard to keep a common Typicon even though they are separated. The act of union was no justification for regarding this as a new church for the Greek-Rus people in the mind of the signatory bishops. The bishops apparently saw the onus of conforming to be on the Uniates of the Brest agreement, in that if the practices of the other 'Greeks' had changed by the time of further union, the first group should change to match them.

Anyway that is my take on it.

Michael