|
0 members (),
589
guests, and
45
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,419
Posts416,918
Members6,049
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,367 Likes: 31
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,367 Likes: 31 |
Rome did review the Pittsburgh texts, found them to be in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition and with their own principles as enunciated in Canon 40, � 1, and permitted the promulgation (Letter to the Council of Hierarchs, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001), which was done in 2006. "...in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition and with their own principles as enunciated in Canon 40, � 1,..." I believe this a very important point and it is what is being examined, giving rise to a number of questions. How faithful is the "conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition" in relation to Canon 40, � 1: Canon 40 � 1 - Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians. and ...as the Decree on Eastern Churches said, �All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that they can and ought always preserve their own legitimate liturgical rites and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry our all these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. (� 6)� Therefore, for the Apostolic See of Rome to nullify the promulgation of 2006, it will have to rescind its own judgment, quite a different thing than in the Slovak case. But what exactly was that judgment in its particulars? A rhetorical question: Why not simply publish the approval letter etc. from Rome? I conclude from this:
a)John�s opinion that the promulgation violates Canon 40, � 1 is simply his opinion. Based on what I wrote in the previous post link, his opinion or not, the contention seems at least to warrant questioning and clarification. The Ruthenian Recension is in Slavonic, the translation was from the Greek. What is the significance of the Rome 1950 Greek version of the liturgy that makes it the primary one for the translation? How does it come to figure in such a primary way in the transmittal of the Ruthenian Recension? What were the elements of the Recension that were deemed authentic and which ones were not? What am I missing in what I concluded above: ... the RDL is not formed as a modification of the Recension but a distinct version of the liturgy, neither Greek nor Slavonic/Ruthenian, but something of a recension in its own unique way (an American Recension?). since that conclusion is at odds with the RDL being "in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition," or at the least indicating a dilution of the integral composition of the Rite -- text and rubrics -- of the Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Christ is Risen!
I fear you have misunderstood me - I have not accused you anything, and the reference to the use of ad hominem argument was aimed at another poster.
As to judging what is intelligent and reasonable discourse, that, I suppose, is open to all of us.
But just for fun, here's a possibly useful tip: when someone is utterly infuriated and lets loose with a string of invectives, heavily larded with obscenities, an absolutely devastating reply might be "let us define your terms!".
Meanwhile, like most of the rest of us, I would like to read the letter of approval from Rome but have never been vouchsafed a copy of it. We live in hope.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
Therefore,
1) an analogy is made with the Slovak translations of the 1990's. The situation is different, since the present process for review of liturgical texts was not yet in place. Rome did not approve the Slovak texts and then withdraw their approval, but on appeal, the Slovak texts were judged to be not in conformity with tradition. In the case of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, the Canon Law of 1993 was followed. Rome did review the Pittsburgh texts, found them to be in conformity with authentic Ruthenian tradition and with their own principles as enunciated in Canon 40, � 1, and permitted the promulgation (Letter to the Council of Hierarchs, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001), which was done in 2006. Therefore, for the Apostolic See of Rome to nullify the promulgation of 2006, it will have to rescind its own judgment, quite a different thing than in the Slovak case. It's all well and good that procedure was followed in the case of the Pittsburgh revisions, but it still begs the question, who is "Rome" that reviewed the RDL and what are his/their credentials to judge whether the Pittsburgh liturgy was in conformity with the "Ruthenian tradition" and what are the criteria that he/they used to judge that? And what could his/their agenda have been? And how can be that it conforms to Ruthenian tradition when the Greek version of the liturgy was used as the standard and only then compared to the Slavonic? Saying Rome rubber stamped something is a cop out in my mind. Just as saying the bishops promulgated the Liturgy. The bishops commissioned and relied on the Committee to come up with the new liturgy. Yes they promulgated it, but they did not write it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487 |
Father Serge,
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Your post does show a reply to me, thus the misunderstanding.
Monomakh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,732 Likes: 24
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,732 Likes: 24 |
I thank Father David for his post. Please note simply that the Administrator�s remarks are very tendentious. This is necessary for him in order to defend the right of a priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the 1941 Oriental Congregation Recension and the 1964 translation of the same. Since the Council of Hierarchs has promulgated a pastoral version of the same, he has to show that this promulgation was illegal. Father David completely misses the points I have been making. I have been assured that the Slovak reform of the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy promulgated in the 1990s was done so according to the proper protocol, and was not illegal. I am quite sure that the 2007 Revised Divine Liturgy also followed the appropriate protocol. Yet upon appeal the Slovak Revision was rescinded and replaced with a version that really was a translation of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and was complete). I believe that upon appeal Rome will uphold the right of the clergy and the faithful to celebrate this same official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, in its completeness and with an accurate translation. The Oriental Congregation dropped the ball when it approved the 1990s Slovak Revision. I believe that the Oriental Congregation also dropped the ball when it approved the 2001/2007 Pittsburgh Revision. Given what happened with the Slovak Revision, this is a very reasonable position to hold. As to my ultimate goal, it is not to defend the right of the priest to celebrate the 1964 translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or the 1976 Basil). It never has been and I have stated this on numerous occasions. My goal is that the clergy and people have the right to celebrate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, with both the Church Slavonic and English editions being whole and complete (and, further, the English translation being accurate and in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam and the other directives). My point in quoting Canon 40 is to remind everyone of the responsibilities of the bishops. I believe that their actions were well intentioned but wrong, and continue to appeal to both them and to Rome to correct the situation. Obviously there are some flaws in the 1964 and 1976 translations. We have also discussed them numerous times. Overall, however, those liturgicons are complete and reasonably accurate in rubrics and translations, especially when compared to the 2007 Revised Divine Liturgies. From the beginning I have advocated that these editions be reprinted with corrections, using the principle that one corrects what is incorrect, and that what is memorized ought not to be changed unless it is actually incorrect (i.e., we retain the traditional text of the Lord�s Prayer even though the translation could be made more accurate). Father David speaks correctly that there are abbreviations in many Byzantine Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. I suggest that there is a huge difference in allowing short cuts and prohibiting the full and complete Divine Liturgy. It should always be noted that there is evidence that the shortening of the Divine Liturgy in some Orthodox Churches is being reversed as local Churches work towards liturgical renewal. We see the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church declare anew as normative all of the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension, setting them as a future goal even as abbreviations are allowed. We see the new edition (though unofficial) of a Greek Orthodox Basil Liturgicon (Narthex Press) contains the missing litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn. No mandates, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is definitely working towards a fuller celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Father David discusses mandates, in regarding the praying of the Anaphora. He seems to think that the idea that a few Orthodox are thinking about and a handful experimenting is enough to justify his call for a mandate. I will strongly disagree. If a few Orthodox are experimenting, then experimentation of the same type could be allowed. Again, the evidence he offers supports my position of liberty, and not his position of mandate. Why is Father David so opposed to giving liberty so that the Spirit might work across the entire Church? I am not sure how to understand Father David�s comments on �the big difficulty in an appeal is that it will require the Oriental Congregation to admit it was wrong in 2001, or, at least, partially wrong.� I hope that Father David would agree that anyone who makes a mistake should strive to correct it! They did so with the Slovak Revision. There is a strong possibility that they will do so here. As to Liturgiam Authenticam, I have recommended in my correspondence with the Oriental Congregation that LA be reviewed and amended to more specifically address the excellent requirements it contains to the Eastern Catholic Churches, and seek the input of the local Orthodox Churches in the English speaking world since we should be working towards a common translation. There are several additional points I could make about Father David�s post, but much of the remaining part of his post attempts to refute an argument I have never advanced (that I am demanding the 1964 Chrysostom (and, by extension, the 1976 Basil)). -- Father David continues to fail to address the questions regarding his fundamental philosophy of liturgy (in general, and more specifically regarding rubrics and translation). He states that �we have to act on our own needs today� but will not discuss these specific needs and why they are so different from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church or any of the other Greek Catholic or Orthodox Churches that are down the street or in the next neighborhood. He also will not discuss why the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy or the various other official recensions of Byzantine Liturgy used in most Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches worldwide could not possibly meet these needs. The Revised Divine Liturgy failed at its incubation. It is based upon a flawed philosophy of liturgy, a philosophy that seeks not to translate completely and accurately both rubrics and liturgical texts (respecting what has been memorized) but one of unnecessary and unjustifiable revision and updating. Good men who love the Lord and who are surely well meaning have made a foundational error of judgment in their philosophy of liturgy. The Ruthenian Catholic Church in America needs a complete, accurate, careful, exacting, faithful, and elegant translation of all the official Ruthenian Recension (Slavonic) liturgical books promulgated by Rome. Such a translation must not interpolate, abbreviate, reorder, reorganize, correct, or change anything. Why is Father David so implacably opposed to allowing the full and official Ruthenian Recension of the Divine Liturgy to be celebrated in Ruthenian parishes, in English? Father David will never address this point!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
It should always be noted that there is evidence that the shortening of the Divine Liturgy in some Orthodox Churches is being reversed as local Churches work towards liturgical renewal. We see the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church declare anew as normative all of the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian Recension, setting them as a future goal even as abbreviations are allowed. We see the new edition (though unofficial) of a Greek Orthodox Basil Liturgicon (Narthex Press) contains the missing litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn. No mandates, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is definitely working towards a fuller celebration of the Divine Liturgy. I've corresponded with two Greek Orthodox chanters -- one in Athens and one in Canada -- and they've both told me that the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is a real liturgical restorer, and has ordered the restoration of the litanies that have been dropped from parish use in the past several decades, including the prayers for the Catechumens. The services at St. George's at the Phanar are also said to be fuller and longer nowadays, than in the reigns of the past two Patriarchs. My other contacts -- one Romanian and some Russian Orthodox -- have assured me that there is also a steady movement in the "old countries" to the complete celebration of the Divine Liturgy and of the various daily services. The Patriarchal Cathedral in Bucharest even broadcasts Divine Liturgy and Vespers daily. The Divine Liturgy is preceded daily by Midnight Office, Matins then Hours, although these take so long that they are not broadcast. Just adding my one cents' worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,367 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,367 Likes: 31 |
My point in quoting Canon 40 is to remind everyone of the responsibilities of the bishops. I did not point out in my previious post , although I quoted the texts, that Canon 40 appears to be based on and even similarly worded to the Decree on the Eastern Churches, ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, of VCII. The point of note, however, is that while the stated obligation is enjoined principally on the bishop as an obligation of the Code, the Decree of the Council itself places the obligation on "all members" 6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to on ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions. [ vatican.va] [1] The Canon, interestingly, is found in "TITLE 2 Churches Sui Iuris and Rites" not in the section specific to Hierarchs. Canon 40 in full states: Canon 40
1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.
2. Other clerics and members of institutes of consecrated life are bound to observe their own rite faithfully and daily to acquire a greater understanding and a more perfect practice of it.
3. Other Christian faithful are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law. [ intratext.com] [2]These words seem prophetic of the current concerns. I believe that their actions were well intentioned but wrong, and continue to appeal to both them and to Rome to correct the situation. Consequently, such an appeal and questioning is not only proper but, according to one's conscience and understanding, enjoined on all: bishops, presbyters, deacons, clerics, "monastics", laity. Certainly, legitimate questions and requests for pertinent information obligate a direct and definitive response from the responsible authorities. -------------------------------------------- [1] 6. Sciant ac pro certo habeant omnes Orientales, se suos legitimos ritus liturgicos suamque disciplinam semper servare posse et debere, ac nonnisi ratione proprii et organici progressus mutationes inducendas esse. Haec omnia, igitur, maxima fidelitate ab ipsis Orientalibus observanda sunt; qui quidem harum rerum cognitionem in dies maiorem usumque perfectiorem acquirere debent, et, si ab iis ob temporum vel personarum adiuncta indebite defecerint, ad avitas traditiones redire satagant. [ vatican.va] [2] Can. 40 - � 1. Hierarchae, qui Ecclesiis sui iuris praesunt, aliique Hierarchae omnes studiosissime curent fidelem custodiam et accuratam observantiam proprii ritus nec in eo mutationes admittant nisi ratione eius organici progressus, prae oculis tamen habentes mutuam benevolentiam et unitatem christianorum.
� 2. Ceteri clerici et sodales institutorum vitae consecratae omnes proprium ritum fideliter observare necnon eius in dies maiorem cognitionem perfectioremque usum acquirere tenentur.
� 3. Ceteri quoque christifideles proprii ritus cognitionem et aestimationem foveant eumque ubique observare tenentur, nisi iure aliquid excipitur. [ intratext.com]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
This is necessary for him [Administrator] in order to defend the right of a priest to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the 1941 Oriental Congregation Recension and the 1964 translation of the same. Since the Council of Hierarchs has promulgated a pastoral version of the same... What is a "pastoral version?" If it is pastoral, it must not be binding. And if it is merely a pastoral version, clergy should feel free to adapt the necessary portions of the actual standard promulgated by Rome if they deem it necessary as pastors of local flocks. The local law under which the RDL was formed actually called for a standard text. That text is the Ruthenian Recension. It only needed to be translated into English. Quote:
�6. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a standard text of usage for the Divine Liturgy. This is to be adapted to modern times, legitimate organic development of the Liturgy. The text was to be adapted to modern times respecting legitmate [a very meaningful word] organic [aniother vital word] development of the Liturgy. The following comments of Cardinal Ratzinger are again apropo to a consideration of a pastoral changes in the liturgy: http://www.adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.htmlThe Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid OSB 2004. St. Michael's Abbey Press, Farnborough, England. 336 pp, cloth bound, �20.95 ISBN 0 907077 43 9 Reviewed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Quote: Archeological enthusiasm ...I should like just briefly to comment on two more perceptions which appear in Dom Alcuin Reid's book. Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism --which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism - are both equally wrong. These two might be described as unholy twins. The first generation of liturgists were for the most part historians. Thus they were inclined to archaeological enthusiasm: They were trying to unearth the oldest form in its original purity; they regarded the liturgical books in current use, with the rites they offered, as the expression of the rampant proliferation through history of secondary growths which were the product of misunderstandings and of ignorance of the past. People were trying to reconstruct the oldest Roman Liturgy, and to cleanse it of all later additions. A great deal of this was right, and yet liturgical reform is something different from archaeological excavation, and not all the developments of a living thing have to be logical in accordance with a rationalistic or historical standard. This is also the reason why -- as the author quite rightly remarks -- the experts ought not to be allowed to have the last word in liturgical reform. Experts and pastors each have their own part to play (just as, in politics, specialists and decision-makers represent two different planes). The knowledge of the scholars is important, yet it cannot be directly transmuted into the decisions of the pastors, for pastors still have their own responsibilities in listening to the faithful, in accompanying with understanding those who perform the things that help us to celebrate the sacrament with faith today, and the things that do not. It was one of the weaknesses of the first phase of reform after the Council that to a great extent the specialists were listened to almost exclusively. A greater independence on the part of the pastors would have been desirable. Pastoral pragmatismBecause it is often all too obvious that historical knowledge cannot be elevated straight into the status of a new liturgical norm, this archaeological enthusiasm was very easily combined with pastoral pragmatism: People first of all decided to eliminate everything that was not recognized as original, and was thus not part of the "substance", and then supplemented the "archaeological remains", if these still seemed insufficient, in accordance with "pastoral insights". But what is "pastoral"? The judgements made about these questions by intellectual professors were often influenced by their rationalist presuppositions, and not infrequently missed the point of what really supports the life of the faithful...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I simply think it is a matter of common sense that the Bishops cannot lawfully promulagate a Liturgy which contains within it a Symbol of Faith which does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council. A particular law which contradicts a more universal law can have no force or effect, much the same way that a civil law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. It is really quite simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
What on earth? lm comments that: it is a matter of common sense that the Bishops cannot lawfully promulagate a Liturgy which contains within it a Symbol of Faith which does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council. A particular law which contradicts a more universal law can have no force or effect, much the same way that a civil law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. I will take it for granted that "promulagate" is simply a mis-spelling for "promulgate". I will also take it for granted that lm is unaware of the Double Council, and that he thinks for some bizarre reason that the Filioque "does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council". It is true that a civil which law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. But it is not true that it is impossible for the legislator to promulgate an exception to a more universal law. There are numerous adjudicated cases in point. Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
What on earth?
lm comments that:
Quote:
it is a matter of common sense that the Bishops cannot lawfully promulagate a Liturgy which contains within it a Symbol of Faith which does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council. A particular law which contradicts a more universal law can have no force or effect, much the same way that a civil law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law.
I will take it for granted that "promulagate" is simply a mis-spelling for "promulgate". I will also take it for granted that lm is unaware of the Double Council, and that he thinks for some bizarre reason that the Filioque "does not comport with the definitive Creed of an Ecumenical Council". It is true that a civil which law which contradicts the natural law has no force of law. But it is not true that it is impossible for the legislator to promulgate an exception to a more universal law. There are numerous adjudicated cases in point.
Fr. Serge Father, Many thanks for correcting my typo and yes, please inform me of the Double Council. Otherwise I trust I made myself too obscure! As to the Creed in the RDL, my point was simply that it has been changed because it is missing a word--"men"--and this change has been made without the approval of an Ecumenical Council. Four Bishops in the United States have no authority to change the Creed. Their "particular law" promulgating the RDL within which is a flawed Creed contradicts the more universal promulgation of an Ecumenical Council. The new Creed within the new Liturgy is also contrary to the manifest intention of the ordinary magisterium regarding the proper translation of the word anthropos into English. While the Bishops perhaps did not intend to drop any words from the Creed, by promulgating the RDL, that is what they have done. Hence, their "promulgation" of the RDL is arguably without force of law. It seems to me, therefore, any priest within the Ruthenian Rite does not violate any true particular law which attempts to make the RDL "the sole liturgical text" in the United States for the Ruthenians. I believe Rome would not allow any penalty to stand [at least not in the next life considering the time it takes for appeals to Rome] against any priest who would, in good conscience, celebrate the full Liturgy with the true Symbol of Faith. As to your speculation regarding my thoughts on the filioque, I am not sure what you are saying, but I find no fault with it nor with the desire to remove it from the Creed for the sake of union. In Christ, lm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Perhaps we are to some extent, as Socrates put it in the Apology, "fighting shadows" without two basic pieces of information. One is a copy of the Letter to the Council of Hierarchs, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001 . Unless it is openly demonstrated what was allowed to be promulgated, all of this is to a great degree speculation.
Secondly, a direct question should be made to the Eastern Congregation if a priest of the American BCC Metroplia sui iuris is allowed or forbidden from using other "pastoral" texts of the Divine Liturgy, specifically that text allowed by Protocol N. 380/62 from December 10, 1964.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I think you are correct. What Benedict set forth in Summorum Pontificorum also seems apropos: Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.
|
|
|
|
|
