www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Revised Liturgy Poll

I have recently attended mutiple Greek Orthodox Saturday Vespers, Sunday Orthros, and Sunday Divine Liturgies in Greek, in English, and Bi-Lingual. (Both St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great Liturgies.) I have also attended UGCC Liturgies in both Ukranian and English. I now notice much missing from the current Ruthenian celebrations, and not just words.

This Fast I have also attended the PreSanctified Liturgy in Greek Orthodox Churches. I have experienced the PreSanctified Liturgy both in 98% Greek and in 98% English. Yesterday evening I attended the PreSactified Liturgy at a Ruthenian Catholic Church. More than half an hour was missing, among other things....

Oh, and I also met wonderful Mother of 7 beautiful children. Sure, her family entered the Ruthenian Catholic Church to experience the Beauty of the Byzantine Liturgy but it was mainly to escape the Novus Ordo. She is certainly not pleased with the inclusive language Liturgy. She also wants her family to pray the FULL Divine Liturgy and receive all of the blessings including Anti-Doran. She doesn't care about "Music Restoration" she cares about Spiritual Restoration.

In my last post I forgot to mention that I got home about 45 minutes ago from the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete and reading of the life of St. Mary of Egypt. The Great Canon was at a Greek Orthodox Church. The Compline parts were 100% Greek the Canon parts were 100% English.

The Great Canon was a great and Holy Experience. However, the RDL and the circumstances by which is is being implemented are not made Holy by my attendence of any Church Services. Yes, even though I attended the Great Canon of St. Andrew, I still disagree with the RDL.

Thank you Fr Deacon Lance! I was seriously considering attending DL at the Cathedral in Munhall. And, I was going to read through a 1966 Byzantine Seminary Press version of the DL before and after the DL at the Cathedral.

Of course, I need to pray, pray, pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. I am one of the minority that is **really** troubled by the revision. I was hoping to get some help/peace here on the forum.

I think praying, reading, praying will settle the matter once and for all.

That Your way may be known upon earth, among all nations Your salvation.
jody

Re-reading my post, I am still unable to discern any suggestion that one should attend an OCA celebration of the Divine Liturgy - I simply suggested obtaining a copy of the OCA translation, which is another matter. That translation is done in the same functional variety of English as the RSV Bible, and is readily understandable.

On the other hand, the assertion that the Nikonian Liturgy (sometimes called the "Russian" Liturgy or the "vulgate recension") is notably longer than the complete Ruthenian Liturgy, is simply inaccurate. The Nikonian Liturgy offers two petitions at the Ektene (following the Gospel) not found in the Ruthenian text and four additional petitions at the second prayer for the faithful - but these four petitions are only used if a Deacon is serving. That's it. Even if all six of these petitions are used, it would not add more than 2-3 minutes to the service. Better yet, go to the Divine Liturgy at Saint Michael's Russian Greek-Catholic Church in New York, and see for yourself. Bring a stopwatch if you like.

The variable factor that genuinely affects the length of the service is the choice of music. Some chant systems take longer than others, and some selections of choral music take longer than others.

Fr. Serge

I take it you have not attended a celebration of the Pre-Nikonian Old Rite Divine Liturgy (in Erie or other places). The Old Rite DL is not necessarily "shorter" than the Nikonian.

Dear William,

I tend to cast a wide net in my travels, and for some outside our immediate jurisdiction, but with degrees in music and knowledge of our particular chant settings this is not so much a restoration as it is a reclamation and addition with respect to the musical settings.

I think people outside of the Byzantine Church are in a watch and wait mode, realizing that not enough people have experienced the fullness of the liturgical cycle to even recognize what they are talking about even if they do say something about it at the moment.

But to call this new Byzantine order by the name of restoration is more than a little bit of a stretch of the actual reality, of what has been done.

I don't think that all the emotional flailing has done much to advance the actual realities of what is truly wrong with our current liturgy. But to brush all the negative off as mere ranting by a disaffected few is going to come back to haunt us in the future.

Mary

There was suppose to be a clergy meeting with Archbishop Basil last week for comments from the Pittsburgh parishes that began to use the RDL and RDL music. Concensus from the parish I attend was:

People weren't in favor of the change to "inclusive" language, including our pastor.

People having great difficulty with the new music, very awkward, doesn't seem to flow. As a result, the liturgy begins to drag and pace begins to slow. Not a lot of people following along and singing, too busy turning pages.


U-C







U-C

That's what I've heard from some that I have talked to at my parish, too hard to follow, too many pages to turn. I haven't really used the book at all, just looked at a copy.

Negativism? I favor - and serve each Sunday - a nice, standard Byzantine Divine Liturgy, well sung and unabbreviated. Without a trained cantor, teaching the congregation to sing requires patience, but as time goes by the congregation learns things which at first seemed strange, and the Divine Liturgy is pleasant.

The same thing can be done, and is done, in most of the languages currently used for our Liturgy. This includes Arabic, English, Greek, Church-Slavonic, Japanese, and a good many more. English is rather well catered for, both with translations and with available music in the chant system of your choice.

So what is so negative about these observations?

Fr. Serge

I agree with Father Deacon that there have been putdowns and snide remarks by people on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform (including even some by clergy who support the reform), and that these comments have been uncharitable. On this I join Father Deacon in reminding posters to be charitable at all times. Disagree over issues but don�t get personal. One can say �I agree (disagree) with the liturgical reform because of reasons A, B and C.� One can say I think the bishops did the right thing (did the wrong thing / caused great joy / caused great harm) and then give reasons. One should not make negative personal comments about any individual, including bishops. I will also make clear that �I like the new liturgy / music� or �I dislike the new liturgy / music� is not a personal comment. Good people who have the best of intentions can produce a masterpiece one day and a fiasco the next. At work I am judged by the quality of my work, not by how hard I have worked. That is as it should be.

Unless Father Deacon can provide proof of such a claim that was given to him directly from a bishop he ought not to make such claims (and really should retract it). I do know from accurate and multiple sources that a few who support the reform are purposely spreading such a claim with the intent to label all those who reject the reform as both chronic complainers and a tiny minority. They are neither.

I agree with Steve�s observation. It is for the very reason that our Church has not been faithful in matters of Liturgy that the Liturgical Instruction states: 18. The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating.

Mandates never work. As I have said numerous times in these discussions, if the Holy Spirit inspires and leads true organic liturgical development in the Byzantine Church mandates will not be necessary (and, in true Byzantine fashion, the liturgical books get updated long after said development is already accepted everywhere). The converse to this is that if the Holy Spirit has not inspired and led the liturgical development even a mandate cannot make it find acceptance among God�s people. People can be led, not pushed.

I agree that the comparison to North Korea is uncharitable.

But a study of history will show that the Liturgy is the property of the entire Church � bishop, priest, deacon, monastic and laymen � and that there are many historical examples of �Sensus Fidelium� where the people stopped errant bishops from doing what was wrong. We can even see this in our own history where a certain bishop was �promoted to Rome�.

This is an accurate observation. Judging from my own experience together with the hundred or so e-mails I have received at the website since the promulgation I can testify that there are indeed numerous people who have been hurt by this promulgation. I am personally scandalized at some of the stories that have reached my ears that those who disagree with the reform are being encouraged to leave.

I disagree with Father Deacon Lance. I know that a few of those who support the reforms are claiming that there is no real opposition to it and that those who oppose it are really nuts anyway but the clergy and cantors I speak to each week indicate otherwise.

It is certainly true that most people do wish to be obedient and show deference to the wishes of the bishops. It is also true that it is unlikely that the faithful will organize in protest. What will happen is that a number of people will simply stop going to Liturgy at our parishes. They will go elsewhere or nowhere. We have had a poster from the cathedral parish in Pittsburgh who has been complaining that the cathedral has halved its Sunday attendance since the experimentation with the Liturgy began there several years ago. I have taken the time to speak to a few who have confirmed that there has been a definite loss of people due to the changes over the past few years, and that the remaining people are still very upset at the reform.

The fact is that the New Liturgy is not a draw to most people. That is understandable since the liturgical flow is now nothing like it used to be and much more like the Roman Mass. When people don�t like something they tend not to embrace it. I understand this attitude completely. Since Bishop Pataki mandated the rubrical reforms in Passaic about 10 years ago the Ruthenian Church has become less and less a home to me. Now with the mandated New Liturgy it is no longer a home to me. I could now walk away from the Church I have worshipped in all my life. But this Church is worth saving and restoring and the current bishops will not be on their thrones forever. The correct path is to start laying the foundation for a rejection of this reform and for a restoration of the official and complete Ruthenian recension.

While Father Serge has explained that he was not advocating attending an OCA Liturgy but suggesting reviewing the OCA Liturgicon (and others) I will comment on this.

There are OCA parishes and then there are OCA parishes. Attending one that has a full and complete Divine Liturgy is a good idea. Better yet, find a ROCOR parish and you will find excellent Liturgy. Or, sit right at your computer and listen to the Paschal Divine Liturgy from 2006 and use it as your comparison. 75 minutes of your time will show you that the Ruthenian Recension works! [There are a number of parishes with singing this good.]

Do not compare the Revised Liturgy with the worst Liturgy in our parishes. Compare it with the official Liturgy and use those places that celebrated it fully and where it is obviously Spirit-filled.

That is the consensus from most parishes. No one but a tiny, vocal and persistent handful wanted liturgical reform. Many were willing to be led back to a much fuller use of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. It is not too late for the bishops to do what is right and cancel the revision and finally promulgate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (as in our official books from Rome) as our standard.

We have not been faithful with the great gift we have been given in the Ruthenian Liturgy. Instead of embracing it we run from it and reform it because we are embarrassed of who we are and who we are called to be. It is never too late to do what is right and finally embrace this gift. If we do we will become like the servant who had been given five talents and multiplied them. Right now we are like the servant who was given one great talent and buried it in the ground because he was afraid. The longer we leave it buried the more likely everything will be taken away from us.

Amen!

God bless you Administrator! I pray that your words prove to be prophetic.

Let us all pray for the bishops! May they promulgate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy!

O Lord, in Your love for mankind, look down with merciful eyes on Your servants who, with faith, prostrate before Your loving kindness and having heard their supplication, bless their good intention and their work. Grant that they may favorably begin and, without any obstacle, quickly complete it for Your glory; we pray You, O Most Powerful King, hear us and have mercy.

Heavenly Mother, Mother of Our GOD, Protectress of Christians, interceed for us! Unworthy as we are, look upon us with your tender mercy! Never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, sought thy intercession was left unaided. How often, our dear Mother, you have come to the rescue of sinners! How often you have crushed the head of the serpent! We implore your intercession for our intentions. This is a most desperate hour, we beg your sweet and loving intercession.
Amen.

I don't know if this is directed at me or not, but again I will state I am neutral on the reform on the whole. I labelled no one a chronic complainer. I do believe that as with all change those adamantly opposed are a minority. Of course I am judging things from my own experience, but any change is likely to upset any number of people for any amount of time. When my parish: resumed infant Communion, standing for Pascha, omitting the Filioque, and started having Liturgy with a deacon, many were unsettled and had to get used to the above. Those really opposed were few and some moved on but even they got used to it. From my own observations those are my beliefs about those opposed to the reform. It is not an attempt at belittling their opinion, but as some claim the Metropolia doomed I feel compelled to offer the counter-point.

As for proof of my claim it comes from this very site and those who claim to have written or spoken to the hierarchs and claim to have been ignored.


I must disagree. Mandates do work and the OCA Litrugikon that is held up as a comparison to ours is an example. Patriarch Nikon might have caused quite a stir but it worked. And I must say that many major changes were brought about by mandate and this is across many Liturgical traditions. Perhaps it is wrong in thinking that the Holy Spirit micromanages every change in the Liturgy rather than guiding only the general ethos?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, this was directed at you for you said that �no one will listen to them� and �If the hierarchs read this forum it is no wonder they ignore the letters coming from its members.� Some of our bishops have a history of not answering letters of any kind (regardless of the topic). Because they are not providing responses to letters does not mean that they are not reading them and hearing what the letters say. It is a stretch to conclude that a non-response equates to being ignored (even though it might feel that way).

Regarding the other things Father Deacon mentioned (infant Communion, standing for Pascha, restoring the Creed, the use of a deacon at the Liturgy, etc.) I will suggest that they are all good things, things authentic to our liturgical tradition. Many parts of the reforms now mandated are not authentic to our liturgical tradition. We need to remove those elements and restore our official tradition so that we may be formed by it. I believe that if we restore instead of reform and live our liturgical tradition for a few generations we will be able to speak legitimately to the possibility of reform, a reform done within the unity of the Byzantine Church.

Ah�.. "Patriarch Nikon might have caused quite a stir but it worked?"

The Nikonian mandated reform worked only because of the tortures and executions of those who refused to accept it. I don�t recommend holding it up as a model demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit.

I suggest that the statement that the Holy Spirit micromanages is incorrect. He leads. Mandates in our Church along with calls for obedience to things no one is asking for is a recipe for empty churches.

The Nikonian reform "worked" to the extent that it did on the basis of murder (Hieromartyr Paul, Archpriest Avvakum, and many others) use of force and violence to compel clergy and faithful to use Nikon's books, and horrendous abuse of the consciences of hierarchs, priests, deacons, monastics and faithful. To give one example of such abuse: the government would not recognize marriages performed by Old Ritualist clergy; this had unspeakable results. To this we may add the general cynicism within Russian Orthodoxy which began to heal only when it was too late to stop the Revolution.

But still more to the point: in spite of all of the above, the Nikonian reform did not succeed - unless one chooses to consider the persistence of millions of Old Ritualists in the teeth of everything the Romanovs and the State Church could do to them a negligible matter. The joyful renewal of Church life among the Old Ritualists indicates that there are still major communities (from Moscow to Sydney, incidentally) which continue the authentic tradition of the Russian Church.

As a practical matter, there is no one available with the ability to use that kind of force and violence to compel allegiance to the specific liturgical versions which have prompted this present discussion. Thank God - such methods have no legitimate place in any Church claiming to be Christian. For that matter, such methods have no legitimate place anywhere at all.

Not quite eighty years ago, the attempt to impose a celibate priesthood on the Pittsburgh Exarchate also used some rather high-handed methods. Would anyone care to defend those methods today? If faced with the record of expensive and prolonged litigation, splits in families and parishes, and a legacy of bitterness that is still not fully healed, would anyone claim that the imposition of celibacy "worked"?

Those who are at my advanced age, or even older, will remember the argument that "Mussolini made the trains run on time".

Fr. Serge