www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Good News for People Concerned about Inclusive Language

Thank you, Father, for explaining further the rules and guidelines. It helps a great deal. I have only had experience in dealing with controversial issues in academic forums (where the emotions often run just as strong and the disagreements just as intense), but without the "extras" mentioned in your post. I thus am used to a more restrained format and am unused to such confrontations. Now that I understand the parameters I will be able to adapt myself accordingly.

Dear Father, please consider that you are the one with a mind so convinced that no amount of discussion will alter it. We have been defending our position with Vatican Documents. You seem to reject the Vatican documents (you never respond when someone quotes them). If you wish to argue your case for inclusive language from the official Vatican documents we will listen. But you can�t because neither Catholic nor Orthodox scholarship supports your position.


"Lover of mankind" is a legitimate translation even if not the best.

"Loves us all" is not. It is anything BUT inclusive. Its use simply cannot be defended.

I hold no hostility to either Father David or the IELC. I hold Father David and each of members of the commission in the highest regard. My disagreement is about the substance of the reform. I am sorry that Father David feels a need to claim that all disagreement equates to hostility.

Yes, there most certainly is. Contact a canon lawyer in Rome who is knowledgeable in canon law. Approval letters regarding liturgy carry no canonical authority unless made public.

Talk about hostile accusations!

No one has accused the Council of Hierarchs of lying.

Why not consider the possibility that the Council of Hierarchs have made an honest mistake in their interpretation of the approval letter from Rome?

Why not consider that the canon lawyers who advise them are not infallible and that they, too, have made an honest mistake in their interpretation of the approval letter from Rome?

Father David, I pray that you can put your emotional attachment to this reform of the Liturgy aside and look only at the scholarship. The directives from Rome combined with good scholarship does not support this reform. It supports the restoration of the Ruthenian recension as given in the official books.

"Approval letters regarding liturgy carry no canonical authority unless made public."

I tire of this baseless accusation. The 65 Liturgikon carries nothing but a Protocol number the same as the 06 Liturgikon. Please cite the canons that require this. You cannot because they do not exist.

From the CCEO:
"Canon 656 - �1. Only books with ecclesiastical approval may be used in liturgical celebrations.
�2. Books of prayers or devotions, intended for either the public or the private use of the Christian faithful, are to have ecclesiastical permission.

Canon 657 - �1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.
�2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.
�3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, �1.
�4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, �1.

From the Intruction for applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the CCEO:
"Competencies and Components of Liturgical Legislation

22. Competencies for regulating worship

Reference to can. 657, can. 668 � 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches indicates the competent authority for the regulation of public divine worship. In the patriarchal Churches, this is the Patriarch with the consent of the Synod of Bishops (which should occur in collaboration with the liturgical Commission of the patriarchal Church[27]). Be it noted that which is established concerning patriarchal Churches is also applicable, from can. 152 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, to the major archiepiscopal Churches. In the metropolitan Churches <sui iuris>, the competent authority is the Metropolitan with the consent of the Council of Hierarchs. Both cases require prior review by the Apostolic See. In all the other Churches, the competent authority is exclusively the Apostolic See and, within the limits established by it, the Bishops and their legitimately constituted <coetus> (can. 657 � 1). Other canons of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches indicate the framework of the common norms which regulate the entire liturgical life in the Eastern Churches.

23. The role of the Bishop

The coordination of the liturgical roles, entrusted to the authority of the Church, is made explicit by the current legislation in can. 199 � 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which indicates the role of "the eparchial Bishop as the moderator, promoter and guardian of the entire liturgical life of the eparchy." Similar commitment is asked, in other canons, of his collaborators: protopresbyters (can. 278 � 1), parish priests (can. 289 � 2), and church rectors (can. 309).

The task of the Bishop is to be vigilant that the liturgical life "be fostered as much as possible and ordered according to the prescriptions and legitimate customs of his own Church <sui iuris>" (can. 199 � 1). The Bishop, therefore, does not act solely based on its own judgment nor based on the local customs, but refers to the specific heritage of his own Church <sui iuris>. In this way, the authority of the individual Bishops becomes participation in a greater authority which regulates the liturgical life of their own Church <sui iuris>.

In exercising his mandate as moderator of the liturgical life, the Bishop should neither act arbitrarily nor give way to the behavior of groups or factions, but, together with his clergy, let him be an attentive guardian of the liturgical awareness present and operating in the living memory of the people of God entrusted to him. Just as the <sensus fidelium> is determinant of the comprehension of the faith believed, so is it in the safeguarding of the faith celebrated. The people, from their part, must be faithful to the indications of
the pastor and endeavor to understand them in depth and realize his mandate. To promote a better understanding and celebration of the liturgy, eparchial liturgical commissions of experts should be formed. Of great importance in the liturgical maturation of the people of God will be authentic communities of Eastern monks and nuns, places where, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Mystery daily celebrated in faith is lived in fullness.

24. The role of the Apostolic See

The Apostolic See has intended to exercise an important role in the preservation and harmonious development of the liturgical practices in the Eastern Catholic Churches. This has been realized in the various ways which have progressively flowed together in the activity of the Commission, created in 1717 and operational in the heart of the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith (<Propaganda Fide>) until 1862, for the correction of the liturgical books of the Church of the East. These interventions felt the effects of the mentality and convictions of the times, according to which a certain subordination of the non-Latin liturgies was perceived toward the Latin-rite liturgy which was considered "ritus praestantior." This attitude may have led to interventions in the Eastern liturgical texts which today, in light of theological studies and progress, have need of revision, in the sense of a return to ancestral traditions.[28] The work of the commissions, nevertheless, availing themselves of the best experts of the times, succeeded in safeguarding a major part of the Eastern heritage, often defending it against aggressive initiatives and publishing precious editions of liturgical texts for numerous Eastern Churches. Today, particularly after the solemn declarations of the Apostolic Letter <Orientalium Dignitas> by Leo XIII, after the creation of the still active special Commission for the liturgy within the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in 1931, and above all after the Second Vatican Council and the Apostolic Letter <Orientale Lumen> by John Paul II, respect for the Eastern liturgies is an indisputable attitude and the Apostolic See can offer a more complete service to the Churches.

If the solicitude of the Apostolic See for the liturgical life of the Eastern Churches has often been revealed beneficial in the past, it appears likewise indispensable in the precarious situations in which not a few of the Eastern Churches also find themselves today. The fundamental importance of the liturgy as divine-human action which realizes salvation <hic et nunc and its nature as the privileged place which preserves and expresses the depositum fidei> are precisely that which motivates the function of guardianship and protection, even of Eastern liturgical practices, which the Apostolic See continues to perform: it is a question of guaranteeing and defending the faith in one of its most important expressions. Such conviction motivated the formulation of can. 657 � 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches which reserves the approval of liturgical texts to the Apostolic See for non-patriarchal and non-metropolitan Churches <sui iuris> and requires a prior review by it for the patriarchal and metropolitan Churches. Such revision obviously applies to all that concerns liturgical celebrations.

25. Competencies for the approval of the translations of liturgical books

Through the centuries various circumstances have provoked important changes in the area of language. Within the Eastern territories themselves, the original languages have been slowly but profoundly transformed, sometimes having even disappeared and been replaced by others. In other cases, many of the faithful of the Eastern Churches have left their land of origin and established themselves elsewhere, living next to Christians educated in different traditions; with the passing of time, they have been inserted in the cultural context of the place where they were located. They have often lost the knowledge and use of their original languages, rendering the participation in the liturgy of their own Church more difficult. Therefore, to prevent this difficulty, ever since ancient times the Eastern Churches have often taken measures to translate their own liturgical texts into languages understood by the faithful.

Can. 657 � 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches specifies that the right to approve the versions of the books is up to the competent authority for the approval of the liturgical books themselves, after having sent a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal and metropolitan Churches <sui iuris>.

The multiplication of eparchies or churches <sui iuris> of the same liturgical families that use the same language, sometimes within the same territory, normally requires that standard translations be used. The competent authorities should agree among themselves to obtain this uniformity."



"Why not consider the possibility that the Council of Hierarchs have made an honest mistake in their interpretation of the approval letter from Rome? Why not consider that the canon lawyers who advise them are not infallible and that they, too, have made an honest mistake in their interpretation of the approval letter from Rome?"

Why not consider that it is all together more likley your source is making an honest mistake making such claims rather than the entire Byzantine Catholic hierarchy and their canonical advisors? Why not consider this is a desperate grasp at straws? Why not consider that if you are correct then the 65 Liturgikon has no standing either? No approval or promulgation letter was ever officially published, although they were leaked and reprinted much later.

Dear Father Deacon,

Note that what I said is that the approval letter from the Oriental does not carry the weight of law because it has not been made public. That means that the bishops promulgate on their own authority. They cannot claim approval from a secret letter. Speak to a canon lawyer to verify this.

Why do I consider the bishops to be honestly mistaken?

Look at the promulgation letter by Metropolitan Basil. It is poorly written. It has typographical errors. It technically prohibits both Slavonic and choral music (since it states that no other books but the new Liturgicons and music may be used).

Since the promulgation letter itself is problematic (it was written by a canon lawyer I respect) it is very fair to believe that the bishops have acted with good intentions but have made honest mistakes.

I believe your quotes from Canon Law have already been discussed here. There are possible numerous problems with the promulgation regarding canon law. I outlined each of them in my letters to the Holy Father and to the Orientale.

Dostojno Jest

PS: Yes, I know, that to say that the bishops and members of IELC are mere men and that they are not infallible constitutes hate speech by some on this forum.

Dostojno jest: <<Look at the promulgation letter by Metropolitan Basil. It is poorly written. It has typographical errors. It technically prohibits both Slavonic and choral music (since it states that no other books but the new Liturgicons and music may be used).>>

Speaking of poorly written-- There is also a typographical error in this important sentence from the last paragraph of the Metropolitan's Decree of Promulgation: "I further degree a vacatio legis until the 29th of the month of June..." Notice he used the word DEGREE not DECREE? (Is a degree binding like a decree?) This is exaclty as it was written in the letter our parish priest received from the Metropolitan. This is the same letter given to all priests of the Metropolia. Unless the typo appears only on our priest's letter. Can anyone check to see how it appears on the Letter of Promulgation (not as in the book but in the official Decree of Promulgation as sent to the priests of the Metropolia)?

Lazareno,

Surely there are things of much greater importance for you to discuss about your concerns over the RDL instead of grasping at typographical straws?

Wondering

Yes ther are more important things to talk about than typos. But you would think that something so important would have been proof-read several times. The same is true about the revised text. What was the rush?

To speak legally and briefly. Metropolitan Churches sui juris are competent to approve liturgical texts for their church. The Council of Hierarchs followed all the norms of the law, including review by Rome before the promulgation of the texts. The letter of the Apostolic See to the Council of Hierarchs about the text they submitted for review was a private and personal communication to the bishops. It is not the promulgation of the text for the faithful, since the actual promulgation is by the Council of Hierarchs for their church. Of course, the faithful and priests have the right to know the law that is being promulgated for them, but this law does not come from the private letter of the Oriental Congregation to the Council of Hierarchs. By citing this letter, the Council of Hiearchs is attesting that they have followed the canonical procedure. The only thing an individual could say is that they have not followed the canonical procedure, which is why I said that one must, therefore, accuse the Council of Hierarchs of lying. The review by Rome is mandated by law, of course, to insure that a church or churches do not deviate from the liturgical norms of the Byzantine Church.

So this means that the letter from the Apostolic See cited in the promulgation letter is from the Oriental Congregation. Correct? And hence you could say, and as you did say, on the issue of so called "inclusive language," Rome, meaning the Congregation that dealt with the Roman Rite such as the one which wrote Liturgiam Authenticam, "could be wrong."

So Rome is of two minds on this issue? Correct? At the current moment, therefore, we have two well-reasoned public documents from the Roman Rite that would not allow the Creed to be changed to comport with feminsist taboo--Liturgiam Authenticam and Observations on the English Translation of the Roman Missal. And there is one non-public document which permits such a change in the Creed, to comport with feminist taboo.

The non-public document, protocol 99/2001 also comes prior to the public documents which have been issued for the Roman Rite.

One of the public documents states that the "tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave" -- a rather serious statement. That document actually is attached to a letter which is addressed to the English speaking Bishops' conferences. There is a such a conference in the United States which includes both Eastern and Western Bishops.

And I should mention to be fair, that the Roman Bishops of the United States, in their recent translation of the Novus Ordo, also have requested that "men" be omitted from the Creed. We have yet to see what Cardinal Arinze says about this. So the Bishops in the United States, to some degree, are at least of one mind in their efforts.

Father David�s conclusion is erroneous.

Stating that one believes that the Council of Hierarchs has made mistakes and that they did not really adhere to the canons is not an accusation of lying.

I have no doubt that the bishops honestly believe that they have followed the canons.
I have no doubt that the bishops acted with the best of intention.

Their doing so does not mean they have not also made honest mistakes.

Fr. David said: <<The review by Rome is mandated by law, of course, to insure that a church or churches do not deviate from the liturgical norms of the Byzantine Church.>>

In our correspondence with representatives of the Holy See, we have to show how the revision does indeed <<deviate from the liturgical norms of the Byzantine Church.>>

I've given Father Deacon Paul more than 30 days to point out where I've encouraged people to flee to the Orthodox Church. He has only been able to state that I wrote: 'no wonder people are fleeing to Orthodoxy'. This is, plain and simple, not a statement that encourages people to flee to Orthodoxy and my observing that some Byzantines are converting to Orthodoxy is in no way my encouraging people to leave the Byzantine Church. Once again, his so called proof is an observation of what is happening and not an encouragement for action. I would also point out that I have not left for Orthodoxy and remain a Byzantine Catholic.

I hope that Father Deacon Paul will retract his unfounded accusation and apologize for his specious remark.

Monomakh

I still am hoping that Father Deacon Paul will retract and apologize for his unfounded accusation that I am one who encourages BCs to 'flee' to the Orthodox Church.

I have simply observed people personally and on this board who are converting to Orthodoxy because of the new Liturgy. That is what it is, an observation and not encouragement. Isn't also interesting that I have not jumped to Orthodoxy but I remain a Byzantine Catholic.

Monomakh

I am a living example.

Do you think that the day may come where you enter Holy Orthodoxy?