www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy An Appeal to Our Brethren in ACROD and the OCA

Slava Isusu Christu!

Since our common Carpatho-Rusyn recension is under attack, can our brethren in ACROD and OCA chime in to help us here? Perhaps some of the lurking clergy can help us. IF anyone can direct our Orthodox brethren to the board it would be most appreciated.

Like Patriarch Nikon's revisions to the Liturgy in 17th century Russia, these liturgical reforms will impact us all.

The OCA has a crisis of its own. But nevertheless, the Carpatho-Russian Diocese has some scholars who might perhaps weigh in.

Incognitus

JohnS: Have you looked at the articles of Meyendorff and Scheemann linked on related threads? Your can probably get a general sense of a salient OCA perspective from them. Your post also reminded me of something posted on this topic last year by an OCA member.

Slava na viki!

The OCA doesn't usually view the "Carpatho-Rusyn recension" as its patrimony, even though many members have Carpatho-Rusyn ancestry (although many deny it or aren't aware of it). Rather, the OCA, having its ecclesiastical roots in the Russian Church, holds the Russian recension as its model, the Romanians and Albanians being exceptions. That being said, liturgical styles vary in the OCA today. For example, I've attended OCA Divine Liturgies that adhere very closely to Russian rubrics (� la MP or ROCOR), and then I've attended ones during which the priestly prayers were read aloud, litanies were dropped, etc. In many areas, the average is probably somewhere between these two worship styles. Scholars and seminary professors will also give differing opinions. So, appealing to members of the OCA will yield many points of view.

I can't speak for the ACROD, but you will probably get similar mixed opinions from them as well. As a frame of reference, here's an online version of the Divine Liturgy from the "Come to Me" Prayerbook:

http://aggreen.net/liturgics/C-R_Div_Lit.html

It differs slightly from the current ACROD Pew Book, but it's basically the same. Also, to my knowledge, the ACROD has never once published the "full" Divine Liturgy and/or a priest's Sluzhebnik--every printed edition has simply reflected how the Divine Liturgy is served (or should be served) in ACROD at any given time.

As an aside, the Roman "Ruthenian Recension" (it's not really exclusively Carpatho-Rusyn, but more "pan-Ruthenian" including Rusyns, Galicians, etc. under one label) didn't exist when the ACROD was formed, and so the ACROD wouldn't view that as its model liturgicon. (Now, the Lvov Sluzhenik, on the other hand... )

Just remember: when you have two Orthodox and ask them a question, you get three answers. And when you get three Orthodox together, you have a choir.

Dave

You might be more accurate to note that the preponderance of the texts, concerning the new and improved revision of the revised liturgy and the need to review the revisions, have been level headed and substantive and still those learned and level voices are charged with the charge of "hysteria".

Your concerns now should be to encourage those whom you defend so passionately to come foreward with substantive responses rather than wasting all of our time by falsely accusing many of us of ill, will both directly and by association.

This appeal to the Church not to impose this particular liturgy on us is not going to go away. The arguments against particulars are going to gain strength as the actual text becomes public.

Furthermore, there is enough resistance among the clergy that there will be tacit if not out-right rebellion and there isn't a bishop in the Church who can be at all liturgies every Sunday to insure that this theologically unhealthy translation is observed to the letter.

Eli

Dave writes that "when you get three Orthodox together, you have a choir." Great! Let's get three Orthodox together and have a choir!

Incognitus

Eli, You are a relatively new poster; perhaps you are a lurker in the longer term. You may or may not be familiar with the very many threads, some very lengthy, on these matters over the past four years. I agree that there are level headed and thoughful posts, and I think we would agree that some posts miss that mark. We would probably largely, though not entirely, agree about which are which. (You might like to consider that even an argument that was reasonable on its first posting, looses its reasonableness when repeated like a mantra over a four year period, with disregard of counter-arguments). At any rate, I don't think I have charged hysteria against "learned and level voices".

First, as a stiff-necked Rusyn, I will admit, with some shame, that I have an inherent knee-jerk reaction against being told what I should do or concern myself with; your advice: Ne treba. (btw, I have already by the way called for a workshop). Again, I will disagree that I have made false accusations, directly.

As to false accusation by association, that is a very interesting construction. It conveys to my mind the idea of having chosen teams on the issue - with an cristicism of an argument of one's teamate, however pertinent, being taken as a criticism of everyone on the team, however impertinent. I have argued against this tendency to choose up sides, as that is that is the nuclues of division.

Some of the features of the new liturgy I really like. Some I don't. Nearly all aspects, however, strike me as the stuff about which reasonable people may differ. IMO the more important issue - the wheat - is how we may work together reasonably, so that in the end, whatever occurs, we will have a reconcilation rather than divorce. That is what I see as the true wheat. This is what I have and will continue to concern myself with on these threads.

In this regard, I am grateful for your comments to a poster "on your side" who was coming close to crossing the lines of charity; I applaud Fr. Serge's attaching the right emphasis - namely zero - on the source of an idea, versus the idea itself.

Drafts of the text were posted here four years ago. I don't know that I have seen a gain of strength of argument. If priests do their own thing, so be it. That is what we have now, for better or worse. It has the advantages of putting the final pastoral decisions in the hands of those closest to the pastoral situation and averting rebellion; it has that disadvantages of perhaps meaning a continuation of less restoration and less Eastern practice rather than more in many places, and illuminating, one again, our lack of understanding of the virtue of obedience.

This I do take seriously, and agree that such concerns are weighty (and wheaty). What I recall form your posts is issues with philanthropos. But I don't know, which, if any, translation meets your concerns. Please elaborate.

I'm game. Tell me where and when.

Dave

Who are the scholars in Johnstown?

Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos is a no-fooling expert on Prostopinije - and the music is certainly an issue in this discussion. That's one; there are others.

Incognitus

Does anyone know if Metropolitan Nicholas has written any public comments about the new Ruthenian Revised DL?

Ungcsertezs

According to Fr. David, the Orthodox jurisdictions will revise their liturgy to mimic the Ruthenian Metropolia's Revised DL. Anybody have any written proff that Orthodox bishops are leaning this way?

Ungcsertezs

If I am not mistaken, Metropolitan Nicholas not only sent some of his Johnstown seminarians to the MCI in Pittsburgh this year for training, but also made an appearance himself.

Yes, they exchange seminarian visits everyear. I looking to see if Metropolitan Nicholas has written any articles or sermons or addresses about the Ruthenian Revised Liturgy.

Ungcsertezs

Ungcsertesz writes that


Anyone want to lay some wagers on that? Metropolitan Laurus is himself Carpatho-Russian; is Jordanville about to adopt this Revised Liturgy?

I shall be watching Orthodox Life for favorable reviews and comments on this predicted development.

Fr. Serge