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

If one writes a courteous, concise, well-written letter to the Metropolitan on a serious matter and receives no answer (by the way; send it by registered mail "return receipt requested", this fact should be reported to the higher authorities, with a photocopy of the origina letter and the postal receipt showing that the letter was in fact delivered to the Metropolitan's address.

Fr. Serge

Nick, bishops are allowed to issue orders (I would hesitate to call the Archbishop's letter an ultimatum). Indeed, it's part of their job and why they are called "hierarchs," i.e., they have authority! A lot of Catholics don't agree with the Pope's stand on birth control, abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc. Are we a church ruled by our bishops, or not?

How many of the people who are writing to Rome (or talking about it) are the same people who argue that we are a sui juris church and should not have to bow to Rome on matters affecting only our Church. We can't invite the Pope to intercede in our affairs on some matters and then slam the door in his face on others.

By the way, I liked the analogy between "for me, Robert," and "for us men." Although leaving out the word anthropos ("men") is a change in the wording, it does not rise to a change in meaning, as did the filioque. I agree that words are important--the world was created by God's word. But they are important for their meaning. People who were unfamiliar with the creed would understand either "for us men and for our salvation" or "for us and our salvation" as having the same meaning, i.e., Christ came to save humanity. The change, does not, in my opinion, alter our lex credendi.

I think it's sad that anyone would read into this simple change a feminist "agenda" that will lead us down the slippery slope into paganism and witchcraft.

You are entitled to your opinion. It is a feminist agenda--and that is the cause of sadness. I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that the word "anthropos" was deleted because it was redundant. Remember, the word "mankind" is now obsolete in our Liturgy also--you will not find it in our Tropars either. As far as the slippery slope--I have seen inclusive language evolve into much more serious errors. Satan is very crafty and is not called the prince of the world for nothing.

I pray that the Ruthenian Catholic Church is not plunged further into misguided revision--time will tell.

You are right, bishops have authority, they are the hierarchs, and we must obey them.

They have unlimited power, and absolute authority, to defend the tradition. That is the oath they take at their consecration. They are to be faithful to the tradition they have received.

Bishops are to defend the faith and uphold tradition against all attackers. They are ordained to follow the Ruthenian Recension, not to create another one.

When bishops choose not to defend the tradition, and choose to depart from the Ruthenian recension, violating their own 'obedience' to the vows they made, then how can they call us to 'obedience'. Something doesn't work here.

Nick

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Nick, whilst I concur with your theology, the matter of episcopal obedience is not ours to judge. It is the superiors of the bishop who ought to judge that.

So, while I do not agree that the Ruthenian Church is no longer bound to obedience, I do agree that there are instances where skepticism is necessary, and that this is one of them. That is why writing to Rome, &c. is so fitting and just. Rome is the superior authority to the Metropolitan, and their review (and only their review) of the situation cand determine whether this is authentic Ruthenian tradition. They alone may determine whether the Holy Metropolitan is within his bounds.

-Uspenije

Dear Sophia,
It appears we feel the same way regarding this issue. I do not need to have mankind in the Creed as I am well aware of who I am and am undoubting of my place in Christ's salvation. If this is the keyhole into which Satan plans the fall of the Church as we know it then he really is doing a poor job. The only thing he is succeeding in doing is seperating those loyal to their Bishops from those who are not. Satan must have some respect for the Byzantine rite because look at how he has infiltrated the Roman church as opposed to his influence on a word omission in ours.

Uspenije,

I disagree. The church is the work of the people. We definitely have a duty to follow our rightful authority figures, whether that be teachers, police officers, parents, priests, or bishops--but that duty is not to the exclusion of the use of our faith and reason to determine right from wrong. I believe we have a responsibility to always evaluate what we are asked to do and compare it to what we know of what God expects of us. Our ultimate authority is God Himself, and if the people together feel that the church is being led astray, they have not only a right but an obligation to act accordingly, not to ask someone else to do it in their place.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Wondering,

I can definately see that side of the argument, but at the same moment I compare it to myself. Who is more likely to err, I or a bishop? My humble opinion is that I myself am more likely to be wrong, and I would not wager my soul on the off chance that I am the wiser. As it is, I will leave it to more competent authorities.

-Uspenije

Over the centuries, the liturgy has changed many times and in some cases very drastically. Were the bishops who added to or dropped parts of the liturgy in prior centuries also disobedient? Should we completely scrap the Liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great and go back to the Lord's Supper as it was celebrated in earliest apostolic times because that was Tradition received from St Paul and the Evangelists?

There is a difference between the changes dictated by the Holy Spirit through saints like St. John Chrysostom for the Divine Liturgy or Pope St. Gregory the Great for the Roman Mass and the changes dictated by liturgical committees.

I guess we'll have to wait awhile to see if someday the Pope canonizes "St Basil Schott," "St David Petras," etc.

I have arthritis. Certainly I want to be healed!

Fr. Serge

Wondering: <<Who is more likely to err, I or a bishop? My humble opinion is that I myself am more likely to be wrong, and I would not wager my soul on the off chance that I am the wiser.>> This is often true. But bishops can be wrong. In this case they have erred in promulgating this new liturgy. It is part of our tradition to seek the decisions of the Pope of Rome in matters where there is dispute. In choosing to impose "inclusive" language into the Liturgy our bishops have contradicted the position of the Holy See in regard that issue. I don't think that the Apostolic See has consciously approved the new liturgy. It was probably "rubber stamped" by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental churches at the recommendation of of our liturgical commission and an advisor in Rome who reviewed it. Think of it: neither the Prefect (a Syrian), nor the Secretary (an Italian), nor the Undersecretary (Ukranian) of the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental(Eastern) Churches has English as a first language, and it is doubtful that any of them are experts in Liturgical matters. Do you think that any of these were confident that they could judge whether what was submitted to them was an accurate English translation? Considering their backgrounds, do you think that any of these would share our American preoccupation with "inclusive" language?They must have relied on a consultor for the Congregation who had English as a first language and was also a liturgical scholar. The Prefect must have trusted the recommendations of this scholar and the work of our liturgical commission. This new liturgy passed through Rome most likely in the same way as the present translation of the English Roman liturgy did. At that time (1969-71) many translations of the New Mass were being submitted to the Roman Congegation for Divine Worship for approval. The translations were approved with little scrutiny. Rome is now aware of the poor job that was done with the ICEL (1970) translation of the Roman Missal. Now many corrections are in the works to make the English Mass more true to the form and meaning of the original Latin. History repeats itself, this time in our Eastern Church!

The Lord asked the paralyzed man: Do you want to be healed?
It seems obvious that the man wanted to be healed. But the Lord probably asked His question to scrutinized the man's intention. Do you REALLY want to be healed, in the way God knows best, or your own way?

Our bishop propose pastoral plans which include the need for evangelization. But to paraphrase the Lord's question: Do you really want to evangelize? As Pope Paul VI said, In order to be an evangelizing community, our community must be evangelized. We have to have a true Christian identity. Face it, by adopting a new liturgy we lose something of our identity. Even if the translation was all correct (unfortunately it is not so) and even if the music is more accurate (which it might be) people will be alienated from the Liturgy they have known because it is not their own (until they become used to it). In the meantime the community will not be "at home" with the Liturgy for a while. When a community has lost something of its identity it is in less of a position to enthusiatically invite others into the community. Outsiders can also easily detect when a community is not comfortable with its Liturgy. Even if we get through this phase of discomfort with the Liturgy (musically at least), there remains the problem of the defective translation. Those who know the why the new "translation" is defective can never be at peace with it. Everytime we recite the creed minus a word eliminated due to social sensibilities (i.e., human respect) we will be annoyed. To date myself, it is like listening to an LP record that has a scratch on it. Everytime we hear "who loves us all" instead of Lover of Mankind, it is like hearing a screech. Some might say that the reverse is true, that Mankind offends them, the the phrase "for us men" offends them, etc. But that is really their problem. There is no need for the faithful to defend what is authentically traditional. The burden of proof is on those who wish to deviate from the tradition. Most of our people and clergy are not offended by the English text we have had so far. But many will be offended by the "inclusive" language. There will be many who could care less about it. This is because our people are so poorly catechized that they don't know the real issues. Those who have pushed for the new translation were probably counting on the ignorance of many of the people.

Again: Do you really want to be healed? I think not, if we cannot even admit that we need healing. Do you really want to evangelize? I think not. Instead we alienate the people from what should be the source and summit of their life and identity.

All of us - yes, even bishops - are in need of healing (even the Pope goes to Confession frequently and regularly). There is not the slightest reason to believe that in a matter which concerns the Church the bishops should listen neither to the faithful nor to the clergy. In this instance, there has not even been the pretense of any process of consultation.

Do the bishops want to be healed? I hope so, but since I do not know these particular bishops personally, I have no basis on which to form an opinion of them as individuals. Nor have they really told us very much of what they understand a bishop to be.

In the case of the paralytic, Our Lord's question was neither cruel nor absurd. A paralytic, obviously, is dependent upon others to do almost everything for him. If he is healed, he must take responsibility for himself. At one time or another, most of us have known people who use their own illness(es) as a means to manipulate others, even to become tyrranical, and to avoid responsibility. This can be tempting. The prospect of suddenly surrendering that power can be daunting (I remember a deaf person who absolutely refused to wear a hearing aid, despite trying many of them - and others as well as myself suspected that this deaf person subconsciously wanted the ability to claim "I can't hear you" as an excuse for not paying attention).

Fr. Serge