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

I am very much looking forward to an answer to this question. Anyone?

I am not on the commission, nor in the head of the Bishops, so it would be useless for me to try to answer this question. Certainly you must realize that requesting me to do so is totally meaningless. But it is unthinkable to consider that this was the reason for the changes. This change was promoted by Archbishop Judson of blessed memory and (my perhaps poorly informed) memory suggests that it was to MORE CLOSELY relate to untainted eastern tradition such as:
standing rather than kneeling
adding the teplota
eliminating the filioque
increasing (for many parishes) the litanies
increasing use of the typica during the great fast
decreasing the use of western hymns

The revision does all these thing (overall, though some parishes may have their liturgy slighty reduced)

Also, from a personal conversation, Archbishop Judsen was an advocate of so-called inclusive language.


Because all my life I have worshipped at my Rusyin Byzantine Catholic Church I am not well versed in my brothers rites. However what I have seen with the Ukrainian BC and the local Orthodox parish, the Divine Liturgy and Moleben to Mother of God (Theotokos) are not verbatim.

Many of the comments over the past four months imply that there is a radical departure from other filial ritual. I know that I will be severely chastised for not being able to see the difference and am not going to become involved in a lengthy argument about differences in personal opinion.

Perhaps we should instead spend this time is prayer during this most holy week.

Father Deacon Paul

If the intention is to add Eastern tradition, why would some parishes be required to reduce theirs?

I would hope that this bar that has been set is the lowest common denominator. Surely parishes which have a history of being faithful to the eastern traditions will be able to obtain permission to continue after discussing their specific circumstances with their bishops. Do you not expect so?

Dear Wondering,

I respect your question; it's an excellent one but I'm not in a position to answer it. It would be more appropriate to ask your pastor. I would expect that if a priest wants to continue an established tradition in his parish retaining all the ektenia and antiphons that they would not be forbidden from doing so.

I think that, at least in the archeparchy, the bar has been raised ON AVERAGE; not lowered.

Anyone can point out exceptions; but generally, they ARE exceptions, not the norm.

Personally, something strikes me as odd. I don't want to overdo the stereotype, but I've always felt that Eastern spirituality and ritual has its strength in its diversity. That is, using the vernacular, a respect for cultural tradition and evolution of its music and paraliturgical customs (like pussy willows on Palm Sunday) and the like. Eastern Churches are not all the same. A Pennsylvania parish is not the same as a parish in Syria, or a parish in Serbia is not the same as in Ethiopia.

To me that helps the Eastern Churches to be closer to its peoples than the Latin Church where there was one rite and one language prior to Vatican II. What I am hearing on this forum is that the East is wanting all the Churches to conform to only ONE way; if you don't do it the way they do it in Russia (or Uzhohrod, or Slovinky, or Belgrade, then one is not Eastern.

If one sui juris Church does not respect a filial Church then how can we say we are different than the Western Church? Why would they object to a universal Pope and Magisterium who have done what these Orientals would love to do?

In other words, why do those outside the Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Church think they should dictate what my Church should do. Does union of East and West require two megachurches? This is strictly my personal thought and I don't mean to offend anyone; just trying to keep with Eastern tradition.

In all humility,
Father Deacon Paul

It is not necessary to reform the Liturgy to raise the standard of celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Metropolia. The standard of celebration could easily have been raised with the 1964 Liturgicon, which has the benefit of being accurate and complete.

There is a difference between Liturgy and paraliturgical customs. We hold liturgy in common with all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox. The differences, which the Church acknowledges as �recensions� are not all that great.

It is not just those of us on the Forum who believe unity is important.

The canons assume that we are already keep the Byzantine Rite (esp. the Ruthenian recension) common with other Byzantine Catholics. We have Ruthenian and Ukrainian parishes in the same neighborhoods and oftentimes on the same street. Can anyone seriously argue that the pastoral needs of these different Churches sui juris are so great that each needs to reform the Liturgy according to differing principles?

Unity. See the quote from above.

Sui juris does not mean that we are a local Church that can do whatever we wish with the Liturgy. In our case it means sharing the Byzantine Rite (the complete set of liturgical books) with both the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) and with the entire Byzantine Church.

What is so horrid about the Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgy that some feel the need to prohibit its use in our parishes and mandate different customs?

The administrator wrote:


Though others may not be in total agreement with the changes, IT IS NOT A RENEGADE revision. As is stated on page six of the Liturgikon the change was made in accordance with Canon 657 which states in section 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.

I know you understand this John, but to other forum members who may not know, our Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Metropolitan Church sui iuris.

So the revision is a legitimate one and it is properly promulgated.

The revision is legally proper, it is promulgated, it is disseminated, it is supported by publications and music and it the call to implement it is in place.

Getting back to the original question of this thread, I feel that energy expended will be more productive in implementing it to the best of my ability than in fighting it.

Father Deacon Paul

Fr. Dn.,

There is more opposition to the revised liturgy then the revisionists would like to admit. People have a right to express their negative thoughts about this revision and how it was promulgated.

U-C

Fr. Deacon Paul wrote: <<So the revision is a legitimate one and it is properly promulgated.>>

Just because something might be legal does not mean it is right nor helpful. St Paul said: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful." 1 Cor. 6:12.

Dear Father Deacon,

May I suggest that you ask someone who remembers such things about the two different versions of Article 7 in the introduction to the Missal of Pope Paul VI?

Fr. Serge

Greetings Father Deacon,

I respect your opinion. However, I will fight this tooth and nail until there is a retraction (or I am sure there is no chance for a retraction). I am not a scholar or a language expert. I do not have a masters or a doctorate degree. I am but a lowly layman with an undergraduate degree. But I have never been more convinced of anything as I am that inclusive language in the Liturgy is a terrible error. How do I know this? I can chronicle and link you to many different articles from learned scholars--but when all is said and done, I know this because it is written on my heart.

Peace be unto you during this Great and Holy Week,
Recluse

I agree that it was certainly the intention of the hierarchs to promulgate the Revised Liturgy according to the canons but it seems clear to me (and to many others) that this is not what they did.

Please consider the remainder of the canon you quoted:

The Revised Divine Liturgies promulgated on 6 January 2007 do not �see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance� of the Ruthenian Rite. This Revision introduces changes that are not organic and harm the unity of Christians. The rubrical and textual changes are not organic (one cannot legislate organic change in advance). This Revision does not serve the mutual goodwill and unity of Christians because these changes make the Ruthenian Catholic Church liturgically different than other Byzantine Catholic Churches, effectively removing the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America from the Ruthenian Recension. They also make us different then other Orthodox Churches. [Please refer to my earlier post quoting the Liturgical Instruction.]

I realize and respect that you support the revision. Those of us who do not support the revision have every right to make our voices heard and to petition the Holy Father to rescind this Revised Liturgy and to insist that our bishops promulgate translations that give a complete and accurate rendering in English of the official Ruthenian liturgical books (free from political agendas like gender neutral language).

I disagree that it would be unproductive to fight this reform. It is always correct to fight that which is wrong. I have every confidence that the Revised Liturgy will be short lived. But if it is not short lived, even a 30 year effort to fight for what is is correct would be well worth the effort.

Wow! Thirty years! You have inspired me! It is very possible that I will still be alive 30 years from today. I suppose the revisionists better get used to me because I will be fighting for a very long time. May God grant me the patience, stamina, courage, charity, and love to run the good race--to fight the good fight.

You are absolutely correct. And it is written in the hearts of all men. It is the natural law. Inclusive language is a rejection of the revealed fact that God created man, male and female, to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is, as I think John Paul II has written, the foundational sacrament.

In the legal field, there has been for the last thirty years an attempt to get rid of "men" as an unmarked generic, which includes men, women and children. Along side that movement, there has been a purposeful attempt to destroy marriage, promote contraception, abortion and now a movement to give us "gay" marriage.

In the secular legal world the movement to get rid of "men" as an unmarked generic is closely associated with the evils I mention above.

For a sobering review of the law, look at this site:

http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=95

(Hadley Arkes is a first rate legal scholar and his comments are always very isightful. Daniel Robinson is also very good)

Then go here to look at

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/494.html


At the becket fund site look at the paper by Chai Feldblum:

http://www.becketfund.org/files/92708.pdf?PHPSESSID=b438b37c169a3eeb786822898944b8ad

Chai Feldblum is an accomplished law professor at Georgetown Univeristy. I believe she wrote the ADA--American Disability Act. She is also a lesbian and she is working hard on legislation to promote homosexual rights and homosexual marriage. A few years ago, legislation to promote homosexual rights, (equating it with rights based on religion, sex, color and national origin) missed passing the US Senate by one or two votes.

She believes that laws must be written so that if you oppose things like homosexual marriage, and rights based on homosexual orientation, society should have the right to punish you.

The Vatican watches the 'developments" in the law very closely. Cardinal Ratzinger's instruction on the Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between
Homosexual Persons issued in June 3, 2003, provides guidance. In
footnote 17, that document (which is available on the official Vatican website) referenced an earlier teaching by the same Congregation:


The 1992 document states:


So called gender inclusive language is a fraud and at its "roots" it is completely inorganic. It is no acccident that in the secular world, those who are purposefully promoting it are promoting evils which reject that fundamental truth that in the beginning God made man, male and female, to be frutiful and multiply.

lm, J.D.

Fr. Serge wrote:


On a much larger scale, someone else made that same point:


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...e_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

And in the same lecture the Holy Father said this