www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Anatomy of revised litugy response

Glory to Jesus Christ,

More and more I am hearing and seeing posted here the sentiments of those whose say they have expressed their dissatisfaction with the revised Divine Liturgy to our hierarchs and are hurt and frustrated because they claim that our bishops seem to be insenstive to these pleas. I would like to offer a bit of an "anatomy" of this issue for whatever it may be worth.

The way I see it, there are five levels of response:

1. Just the fact alone that there is any change at all in our Church.
2. The fact that we even dared to tamper with our Liturgy at all when we already have a recension that for the most part is not faithfully followed.
3. The music settings
4. The way the text has been translated
5. The inclusive language

In many areas of our Metropolia, some of the "changes" indicated in the revised liturgy are things that were already being done in many areas of the Metropolia such as the priest taking the Anaphora out loud. Thefefore, the reaction to change in this regard (level #1) are not going to carry much weight. In all honestly there are many parishes, that are still doing things liturgically that our Church has long since moved beyond and rightly so. These parishes and priests might be upset and stand on an argument that "I have been doing it this way for 40 years and I am not going to change. I will retire first!" The same might be said by cantors in relation to the music settings. There are many things in the revised liturgy that might seem new and outrageous to some but they are in fact things that are correct. The point I am making in this "anatomy of discontent" is that a wholesale protest against the revised liturgy is not going to carry much weight because there are in fact many things that are long overdue corrections. There are SOME things in the revised liturgy that indeed are legitimately a matter of "this is how you are going to do it and there are no ifs ands or buts." In some areas of our liturgy this type of mandating is long overdue. In too many parishes the liturigical practices stand in defiance of the very "Rome" to whom we claim obedience as our defining characterstic of being "Greek Catholic" as opposed to "Orthodox."

Any pleas to our hierarchs about the revised liturgy have to be specific and well presented. All of us, myself included, will have our own reactions to the many levels of the revised liturgy.
If your complaint is about the music (level 3) you have to offer a very legitimate reason. You cannot just say, "I do not like it." Or, "I was used to singing it one way for 50 years. This is NOT the way that I would sing this! I am not changing." Such repsonses as these simply do not have enough credility to move the powers that be to respond. You have to present "why" you do not like the music and how it might be better if that is what you think.

I believe that there is probably more room on Levels 4 and 5 for weightier reactions to the revised liturgy. But always, our reactions should be charitable, sincere and well presented always offering constuctive positive alternatives. Anyone has a right to communicate with their own bishop especially about something as vital to the heatlth of our Church as Liturgy.

It remains to be seen whether the revised liturgy will be something that will help our Church or be another nail in the coffin. If, after the revised liturgy has been experienced and there is a great deal of credible discontent, charitabley and constructively expressed, it would be my prayer that our hierarchs would in fact take heed and respond as good shepherds.

There are flashes of greatness in our Church but overall our Church is dying. In a sense it must die but only to be reborn again according to its more authentic self. I believe that we can either do things or not do things that will hasten the death of our Church and it dies by default. OR we can take the dying as opportunity, be proactive, prune the branches, rediscover a sense of the mission of the Church, deveolop an authentic vision of our Church and a strategic plan to accomplish the vision. But one way or the other we are going to die.

By insisting on "dying" my postion is actually FOR our Church, NOT against it. My form of "dying" is a great positive. Not a negative. This is nothing more than the Paschal Mystery--there must be death before Resurrection. There are many aspects of our Church that have become calcified. They probably cannot change. They must die and something more authentic take its place. As always I maintain that this is a journey vertically into our authentic selves. We rediscover those riches about ourselves that are good for all times if they are lived authentically. Our problem is (due to the inferiority complex; our "Original Sin") we have taken on many layers of things in all areas of our Church that are not life-giving. These things cannot be duct-taped and patched anymore. They must die and be replaced. Radical (meaning back to the 'root')renewal is what I believe is our only hope. This requires a renewal on all levels It is simultaneously phsical and spiritual. Our biggest obstacle is fear. But both the Scriptures and JPII remind us, "Be not afraid."

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





In my perception there seems to be four levels of negative response.
1. Just the fact alone that we changed anything in our Churchupon which negative response

Dear Bishops:

I offer a simple positive alternative; put "men" back into the Creed and "mankind" back into the Divine Liturgy.

It will make a world of difference.

In Christ,

lm

I am in complete agreement with lm's proposed request, in both form and content.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

I am also in complete agreement with this. Oh, how much more support this revision would have carried if they did not go the route of inclusive language.

There is something else I just discovered. The nuns of Mt St Macrina published the Festal Menaion in 1985--and our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". They published the Pentacostarion in 1986--our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". They published the Vespers book in 1987--our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". The Matins book was published in 1989--our Lord has suddenly become the "Lover of Humankind". The Triodion was published in 1995--our Lord is the "Lover of Humankind".

What happened between 1987 and 1989 where our Lord's title suddenly changed? Were we being "broken in" for the inclusive changes in the Liturgy?

Dear Archbishop, if you are reading this, please stop the madness! I beg you.

Dear Bishops,

Please rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy.

Please promulgate the real Divine Liturgy.

We do not want the 1970s Roman Catholicism that is the Revised Divine Liturgy.

We do not want the gender neutral language that is the Revised Divine Liturgy.

We want authenticity.

We want Orthodoxy.

We want Orthodoxy in communion with Peter.

God has taken 1,942 years to give us the Ruthenian Liturgy.

Embrace it.

Do not run from it.

Test everything; retain what is good. - 1 Th 5:21

The official Ruthenian Liturgy has been tested. It is good. It should be retained.

Please! Please! Please do not make us look outside our Ruthenian Catholic Church for what is already ours.

We are begging you....

1 Th 5:21

American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese [acrod.org]

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your post. Although we share much in common with our Orthodox brethern, severing our union with Peter would not be a viable alternative. For me at least, the inclusive langauge is so disturbing because in it, there is a certain implicit severing with Peter and all that I believe is truly orthodox. Many blessings.

In Christ,

lm

One can read in �Renewed Byzantine-rite Divine Liturgy� (I got this on speronews.com) one byzcath bishop�s take on the renewed liturgy. He had this to say- �It is my personal hope that we will take a positive attitude and sincerely take an effort to adapt to the changes. Let�s not let disagreement on words or rubrics weaken our unity. With this unity, our church will continue realize for years to come the blessings of the awesomeness of our Liturgy.� Fr. Loya, Will byzcath bishops listen if one gave a lengthy argument as to why some things are not right or good? I write this because my family tells me about a number of cantors quitting as well as priests. I feel bad for them all but I know there are two sides to any story.

Eddie

Whether or not Bishop X chooses to read a letter depends largely upon Bishop X. But it is necessary to write letters - and to write them carefully, precisely, and without being vituperative, because the letters form an important part of the record, especially when/if it becomes necessary to appeal to higher authority.

Meanwhile, I can assure you that whether Bishop X is reading these letters or not, someone in his office is counting them, and also counting letters in favor of the "revised liturgy". Anyone in public life knows full well that each letter represents many people who agree but will not take the trouble to write.

As to unity - unity is certainly an important value. But unity purely for the sake of unity is unconvincing.

Fr. Serge

This is a matter of grave concern. Can you provide us with any other details? Part of country or eparchy perhaps?

I find it hard to believe that this matter alone could be driving out cantors and priests.

Michael

One fascinating argument I read may be found under "Eastern Spirituality" on the Archeparchy's website, under the Byzantine Spirituality Conference. Therein, a nun (a certain Sr. Simon, I believe), arguing for making the silent prayers of the priest audible, gives the glorious comment, "How can we say "Amen" to the prayers if we cannot even hear them?"

For all of the Sr. Simons out there, I ask: how can you believe in a God if you cannot see Him?

Sr. Simon, you can know that something exists even if it cannot be perceived by your senses. The best man who ever came out of the West, St. Thomas Aquinas, wrote: "Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived".

Hearing is not so important as knowing; we aren't the idiots for whom they take us.

-Uspenije

I probably shouldn't speak thru hearsay. But I couldn't help from hearing the concerns of my byzantine cath family over the past week. Several said to me that they are looking closer at their hymn books now. The ones really upset about the word changes (like children of God in the Beatitudes the say) are the teen girls. This is surprising. It makes me wonder what the fuss is alla bout and why teens are being so vocal. Is the new hymn book against women to anger them so?

Eddie

hi Uspenije.
THis reminds me of the Quakers. They worship in silence. Is this a custom in the byzcath religion? The byzcath churches are so colorful with pictures from the Bible I can't see how a byzcath would want to be silent now. Jesus said if you have ears; listen! if you have eyes; see! I am always impressed at how byzcath believers are all eyes and ears in thei prayers . I've been to some byzcath services and some can outdo the Baptists.

Eddie

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Eddie,
This is true, and indeed the Byzantines do not worship in silence. Whilst the singing, &c. is carrying on, however, the priest will be saying prayers silently. The position of Sr. Simon &c. is to further degrade the Liturgy by mandating all prayers of the priest be audible.

In my opinion, that also would serve to degrade the barrier betwixt laymen and clerics.

-Uspenije

The faithful should know what the priest is praying but this does not mean they must hear it all at each Divine Liturgy. Doing these prayers - all of them - aloud at every Liturgy is alien to the Byzantine Rite as practiced for hundreds of years. It gives the Divine Liturgy a didactic quality that has become a serious issue in the Roman Rite. People are bored with the Mass because they have heard it all before - as if the Mass were primarily intended for their edification.

It is fine to pray some of these prayers aloud once in a while. But this should be left to the discretion of the pastor.

And when they are prayed aloud they should be sung or chanted but never simply spoken.