www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Do you want to be healed?

With all the posts and the people in my parish whining about this revised liturgy it makes me think of the story of the paralytic. None of us are theologians here. As far as I know only 3 men have ever been officially recognized as such, St. John, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian. That being said, who are we to criticize what the Church decides because we've read a few books or spoken with a few "experts"? The Church made the Creed and has the right to revise or even change the Creed. This was the authority given to Peter. I can only trust in God's Kingdom, the Catholic Church, to guide me to paradise. The beautiful thing about the Catholic faith is that there are many rites of which one can choose to be apart of. If Ruthenian isn't doing it for you, go Ukrainian, or Melkite, or dare I say.... Roman. Some are complaining that they were Ruthenian there whole life and that is the way they choose to be saved and shouldn't have to go elsewhere. Well, that is how the paralytic felt, he was near the pool for 38 years and felt that he shouldn't have to go anywhere else to be healed. That's why Jesus asked him if he even wanted to be healed. Sometimes we have to break with tradition and go somewhere else. If you feel the Ruthenian church is heretical or the revised Liturgy is not to your taste, go to another rite rather than wallow in spiritual sickness. Don't mean to sound harsh, but the Liturgy revisions are fine with me. When they start ordaining women to the priesthood then maybe I'll start looking elsewhere. Until then I am but a humble servant and loyal adherent to my Bishop's perogatives.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have been a ghostly reader of these forums for some time, and have just now got round to actually registering an account for myself, so a belated salutation to you all.

This entire forum was very unsettling for me, my stomach lurched and I did indeed cry upon reading the words "Revised Divine Liturgy". Liturgical reform does not sit well at all with a traditionally-minded Western Catholic, especially one who has fallen in love with the East (and hopes possibly to change rites one day). However, upon reading these forums, it would appear that this amounts to something more correctly stated as a re-translation of the Divine Liturgy.

Whilst I do understand and sympathise a hundredfold more with the traditional posters in this thread, I would like to raise some points:

1) This translation does not appear too terribly drastic (except possibly the "Lover of Mankind" being dropped). Unlike in the West, the Slavonic (which is in the West the Latin) has not changed. The essential celebration is unchanged from time immemorable.

2) More effective traditionalism is always affected within a rite, rather than parallel to it. When the traditionalists in the Western Church moved to the indulted Latin Mass, the normative Mass was seized entirely by the modernists. In those places where traditionalists remained (viz. Assumption Grotto or St. Mich�l's Canonry in Orange, CA) within the rite, the rite flourished and returned to more ancient ways. Do not isolate yourselves, as attractive as seclusion may sometimes seem.

3) The thing which touched me most upon my visit to a Divine Liturgy (on the Sunday before the Feast of the Holy Dormition, hence the username) was the collective faith of the assembled, and the love for that in which they were participating. DO NOT LOSE THAT! That is the one thing which separates, in my mind, the Byzantines from any other Christian group which I have seen to-date.

A blessed Sunday of Orthodoxy and Great Fast to you all.

-Uspenije

Dear Theologos,

I am glad you are happy with the revisions of the Liturgy. Have you experienced the revised Divine Liturgy? Has your pastor put the new books in the pews? Is the cantor singing the new music? Is the pastor using the five loaves? the hot water? If your pastor has begun using the new books, he will be one of the first, and I'm anxious to hear how he introduced the changes?

Nick

My parish does have the new books and we are saying the new Liturgy but using the old music. The music will take a while to implement because we do not have a cantor at our parish so teaching the laity will be an adventure. I have been to the Liturgy at the Seminary and it is beautiful.

Theologos,

I have a question: As I am a Latin-riter, and therefore have only had one round of Carpathian plainsong, how does the new music compare to the old music? Is it very different?

I have uploaded the new liturgical book linked to upon this site, and found many recognisable tunes, but I do not know how their usage compares to the old manner. Can you assist me?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

-Uspenije

Dear Theologos:
I think ultimately we must submit to the authority of the Church. However, I also believe that the laity should speak out when they are being scandalized by actions of their bishops. Now I'm certainly not saying that every time someone feels scandalized by the bishops that he or she is right and the bishops are wrong. But in such cases, I believe that bishops need to listen to those among their flocks who do take offense-individual bishops do err from time to time! As a relative newcomer to the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, I do not take a firm position one way or the other on the revisions to the Divine Liturgy. Though I have more than four years of graduate theological education, I think I'm not informed well enough to dive into all the nuances of this argument. However, I do think that those who are adamantly opposed to the changes should be heard and their objections taken seriously-even if the bishops are ultimately unpersuaded by those objections. I don't think the mentality that says if you don't like it, I'll be glad to show you the door is helpful or Christ-like. I would also add that a particular Church within the one universal Church does not have the "right" or authority to change the Creed of the one universal Church. That should be done only in the context of a council of the Universal Church.
In peace,
Ryan

Not being even remotely musically inclined myself. The only difference I have noticed is that it places the emphasis on different parts of the words. It seems slower and more greek sounding to me.

Dear Ryan,
Alot of the people I have spoken with that have studied theology at the graduate level seem to think they understand the whole thing and should have been consulted themselves so your humble attitude is VERY refreshing. I don't want to start a whole grammatical debate but I don't believe leaving mankind out of the Creed changes the nuance. It still carries the same meaning. If I say "let us Catholics partake in the Eucharist" or "let us partake of the Eucharist", I highly doubt that Muslims would take this to mean them. So the meaning is still there thus the Creed hasn't been changed, only re-worded. Besides, when the Creed was first developed I don't think they wrote it in English. The Slavonic version is still intact. It may seem I am saying that if you don't like it then leave, but what I want to get across is that so many people I've spoken with are ready to hop the Dox train rather than exploring other interpretations (rites) of their own Catholic faith first.

How many people have such a luxury as to have numerous other Byzantine churches to choose from in their vicinity? And of those with such a luxury, how many have Byzantine churches which are faithful to their eastern patrimony in their vicinity to choose from?

Dear Wondering,
As I am from Pittsburgh there are a bunch of eastern rite Catholic Churches within a reasonable drive time. You are right and I should take into consideration those that do not have the luxury of a smorgousboard of churches to choose from.

The word "men"(anthropos) in the Creed has never been an issue with the rank and file of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. And so one is left to wonder why it was deleted. This is horizontal inclusive language and it is obvious that this word disturbed the re-tranlaters. Also, Christ has always been known as "the Lover of Mankind"--not "the Lover of Humankind" and not "the Lover us all". In the new webster's living dictionary, the definition of humankind is mankind! Go figure! Attending the Roman Catholic Mass the other day, I noticed that "anthropos" remains in the Creed! Why has Rome promulgated the deletion of it for the Ruthenians? Something smells funny to me. And yes, my consience is scandalized. I will be writing multiple letters.

Maybe before writing a letter off to Rome one should be written to the Metropolitan's office for his reasoning in accepting this revision. Granted there is a feeling that the feminist agenda is at work here but then again, without the feminine element in our church there would be no incarnate God, no early house churches, nor any nursing home in our Metropolia to keep us afloat. Like I stated earlier, I will leave when the ordination of women comes up, but I have a funny feeling it never will.

Archbishop Schott does not answer letters.

Archbishop Schott does not meet with laypeople.

We tried speaking to him at the Cathedral several times.

Half the parish has tried to speak with him.

He will not stop long enough to listen.

The bishops know this Revised Liturgy is bad.

The bishops don't care. They want us to leave.

Well if the Bishops wish us to leave, then we should adhere to our shepards' advice and leave.

I am Roman Catholic traditionalist, but I used to sing Vespers at a Ruthenian church on Saturday. Last Monday I wrote a respectful
letter to His Grace Bishop William of Van Nuys to tell him I would leave when inclusive language is adopted. I sent a copy to the Pastor. On Saturday the Pastor took me aside and calmly told me that I should rather leave immediately than walk out later. And that's what I did.