www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL is a Byzantine Calvinist Liturgy-first of its kind

By expressed intent the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh now has a protestant worship service.

In Catholic liturgy we offer the salvific oblation of the Redeemer King, under the species of bread and wine, and we offer ourselves with our Lord and Master, in a re-presentation, in an unbloody manner, of the sacrifice of Calvary. We offer this for the greater honor and glory of the Father, through the Son by power of the Holy Spirit.

The liturgical vehicle by which we do this is verbal prayer AND sacramental action.

We do not give honor and glory to the liturgical vehicle.

We are not there to memoralize.

Protestants memoralize.

Catholics act and re-present and unite in the divine act of salvation....and sometimes we use words.

Inclusive language, folks, is the very least of your worries, these days, in the Byzantine Church.

Mary Lanser

Dear Mary,

Our Lord said "do this for a commemoration of Me." Both parts of this phrase are important! Father David says that the priest, by saying "offer the anaphora", is announcing that we will do both. The anaphora is the effective prayer that "does this", it is a prayer that is offered to God as our "sacrifice of praise", and it is anaphoric - it keeps bringing us back to the salvific passion and resurrection.

Yet you seem to be saying that the "for a commemoration of Me" part can be neatly separated out and dismissed a "Calvinist" - then dismiss the entire text of the anaphora and announce that the new Divine Liturgy text is no longer sacrificial.

What God ordered to be joined together, we ought never divide. We remember in order to offer sacrifice, and we sacrifice "for a commemoration". The Christian anaphora is ESSENTIALLY a commemorative prayer of sacrifice; you cannot offer this prayer in a non-sacrificial way. I'm afraid your argument, which ignores the text of the anaphora and concentrates on the command to be attentive and to co-offer that sacrifical prayer, then concludes that the priest (and the people with him) are NOT offering a sacrifice, falls down on that command of our Lord's.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

It seems as though I did not make myself clear enough.

Father David begins by dissembling John Vernosky's focus on the eucharistic offering by replying to John's note with: 'God is not in need of salvation.'

No one here, least of all, John Vernosky every said that God is in need of salvation.

We are in need of salvation.

We are in need of, and given the blessing of, participating in our salvation in a very real sense through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jeus Christ, in the sacramental action of liturgy, of which words [prayers] are one element.

Catholic liturgy is designed to give honor and glory to God. We give glory by the power of the Holy Spirit, in our willing obedience to die to sin, die to the world, die to our passions.

In a Catholic liturgy we have inherited the opportunity to live, die, resurrect and ascend with Jesus, in a Holy Oblation that is far and away more real, more active, more participatory than any memorial elocution designed to make us feel ever so much better.

Father Petras, and God knows who else in the Byzantine Church, have come around to the very heart of what set men like Calvin and Cranmer, with his liturgical two-step, in diametric opposition to the Catholic liturgy.

It was Calvin and Cranmer's verbal skills and ability to soft pedal their protestant innovations that made them so dangerous.

Bear in mind that both men asserted the "real presence" too. There must have been something going on that separated their, ever so familiar and similar, expressions from the heart of the Body of Christ...eh?

Dear Mary,

Yet you've given no evidence of what this "very heart" is. Are chrismation and communion of infants, and aliturgical days in Lent, the restoration of some litanies, and the use of Greek theological terms when English terms were judged insufficient, really intended to make use feel "ever so much better"?

(Remember that Greek-speaking Christians tried using a Greek translation of "Amen", and went BACK to the Hebrew word because the alternatives were not sufficient. Our liturgical commission and the bishops have evidently decided that "Theotokos" and "anaphora" were similarly "hard-to-properly-translate" words. Maybe someday they will do the same with "man" and restore it too.)

What exactly are the "Protestant innovations" you are willing to tar our priests and bishops with? And other than "inclusive language", are they anything other than practices of long standing (such as leaving the Royal Doors open), or practices recommended for consideration by Rome (such as taking the anaphora aloud)?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

You write that:



Does this mean that you would like the Liturgy to state that God is the Lover of Anthropoids?

Fr. Serge

You lecture to me concerning things that I am not addressing.

I am addressing Father David's catechetical words here in this forum.

I am addressing the theology Father David expresses that supports the liturgical changes, in so far as Father David is here as a spokesperson for liturgical change...in so far as Father David is sent out into the eparchies as spokesperson for, and catechist for the liturgical changes.

Most of our priests are well aware of what I am doing here and some have tried to dialogue with Father David. They have been cut off...summarily.

We are a hair's breadth away from becoming a liturgically heterodox confession...or Church, as you will, both by some of the substantive changes in the liturgy and by the "teaching" that accompanies them.

I am pointing to things in the hope that other laity might catch on to what is happening in their Church.

There is little effort being made to hide the slither into heterdox teaching. So I am not encouraged to hide my response to it.

You may agree with it or not but every time you try to distort what I have to say, I will be here to correct you and draw further attention to what I think is very very substantially wrong in our Church at this moment.

Mary

Father, your blessing.

No, just as the Greeks once tried substitutes for Amen and returned to it, I hope that those try to find substitutes for "men / mankind" will decide that the alternatives don't work, and return to using those (English) words.

Jeff

Dear Mary,

I'm in no wise trying to lecture. I'm asking what heterodox teaching or catechesis you are talking about. If it amounts to bishops exercising pastoral economia and prudence over how they order their flock to celebrate Liturgy, I don't see that in itself as heterodox or revolutionary (or even new); bishops are certainly not supposed to avert their eyes from the people and their needs when making such decisions, and neither do they automatically forget God in doing so.

If you can point to particular problems in the text (and you implied they went well beyond concerns with "inclusive language"), please do so. I'm trying to determine what your point is.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Just keep the following in mind and I am sure you'll be just fine.

I see nothing in what you write that is at odds with the new liturgical text OR catechesis - except that we certainly DO "memoralize", to the extent that our Lord TOLD us to (though not ONLY to memorialize, of course) - the anaphora keeps saying "calling to mind", "commemorating", etc.

I'm sorry, nothing that you wrote makes it clear what your accusations are.

Jeff

We'll need to wait and see then for this could be as much a flaw in your perceptions as it is a vindication for the theology behind the liturgical changes.

Remember, Arius and his followers offered, in their minds, not much more than an minor shift in emphasis, a theological subtlety.

It took a while to clear that mess out too.

M.

I am truly sorry that I caused this debate. At least it has revealed what the real problem is - a fear of Protestantism. I have tried to explain elsewhere how the Protestants went wrong - by separating the ideas of memorial and reality. The quotation from "Life and Worship" explains it better - I recommend the book highly and worked with those who put it together. It represents my thinking on the subject. But please - it is clear that the Liturgy is an "anamnesis," a rmembrance of Jesus Christ inwhich he is truly present by the power of the Spirit.

Jeff:

I am in agreement with you: I'm perplexed as to what Mary's specific accusations are.


Mary:

I would like to say that I'm not an enthusiast for the RDL. I prefer the translation we were using. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a more specific account of how you see the RDL as being a Protestant liturgy.

Thank you,

Ryan

Perhaps if I had made such a sweeping statement, I might have an answer for you. As it is, I made no such statement. You are reading from Jeff's over statement rather than looking at what Father David said here and elsewhere that has prompted my response to date.

Since I did not make the statements that you are attributing to me, I really have nothing to say about it.

You and Jeff seem to have full control over your part of this discussion, as well as taking control of mine.

Have at it. You apparently don't need me.

Mary

Mary:

Did you not start the thread and give the thread its title? Did you not write "By expressed intent the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh now has a protestant worship service"? It seems perfectly reasonable based on this that anyone reading this thread would infer that you are claiming that the RDL is Protestant in character.

Ryan