www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Implications of Summorum Pontificum for the RDL

Dear Starokatolyk,

The people who are saying "Make Rome order the bishops to roll back the new books" are, in effect, saying that. Convincing Rome to order the complete observance of the Ruthenian books - which they have declined to order for sixty years - seems less likely. Convincing Rome to order that the use of the Ruthenian books (or, presumably, earlier translations of them into English) be allowed is more achievable, but gets us no CLOSER to actually seeing the Ruthenian Recension celebrated. The books have been allowed for forty years. Actually seeing the Ruthenian Recension widely celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church will take education and concensus, OR episcopal action - and preferably both.

Jeff

P.S. And of course, nothing prevents any priest from using the Ruthenian Recension books in Church Slavonic, as far as I can tell - both text and rubrics. But for all the voices in favor of Church Slavonic (including mine), I have a feeling there won't be a very broad impact from the adoption of the Ruthenian Recension until it is used in English celebrations as well. We've lived with "unofficial" books for a LONG time.

ByzKat,

yes, and we've been in decline for a LONG time.

There is evidence that parishes that implement a full liturgy have flourished.

I have to come back to what I asked you in the past. There are examples of parishes that have gone from 30 people to 140 people by implementing Vespers, Matins, and a full liturgy. I'm assuming that based on your writings that Revised Liturgies must have been shown to grow parishes better then the official recension if they promulgated it. I have yet to see this and that's why I'm especially curious to learn about those that have. If you are unable to provide this info I have to wonder why you are promoting something that is not shown to work when the official recension has been shown to work? Plese clarify?

Monomakh

Canonically speaking, this analogy is flawed... "Rome" is not denying permission to celebrate the DL according to the Red Book or any "book"... the Council of Hierarchs has decided how the DL is celebrated.

BTW, the Holy Father identifies the 1962 Johannine revision of the Roman Missal as the 'Forma extraordinaria', and it may be celebrated as one of the eucharistic celebrations of a given parish. The Pauline Missal is still retained and is the ordinary form of the Latin eucharistic celebration.

What then of Card. Tisserant's letter [link] [patronagechurch.com] of 1941 ("norms") and Bishop Daniel's letter [link] [patronagechurch.com] of 1953 (... all endeavor should be employed that purity and uniformity of our rite in conformity with the desire of the Holy See should be brought into practice.")?

What books?

What books? I don't have time this morning to provide the complete list of Ruthenian Recension books published by the Holy See but it's readily available.

Language problem? Nobody ever said that these books could not be used in translation into English (or Ukrainian, or Slovak, or Tibetan or any other language). The requirement is that the translation be complete and accurate; the RDL is neither of those.

Others as well as myself have pointed out repeatedly that Rome has ordered that these books be implemented; the persistent refusal of what is now the Pittsburgh Metropolia to implement the official books is a scandal to the jaybirds - and the experience of parishes that have gone courageously forward and obeyed the higher authority, implementing the books, is proof positive that in spite of bleating to the contrary, the use of the official books does not drive people away.

At present, all that is needed is the backbone for even one parish - preferably but not necessarily with its priest - to launch a formal appeal to Rome, quoting the highly relevant sections of yesterday's two documents. At worst, Rome might rule that the RDL is an alternative, but there is no possibility that Rome would rule in favor of the attempt to forbid the use of the official Ruthenian books - or, for that matter, to insist that the official books may only be used in Church-Slavonic.

But Rome will probably not act until and unless she receives such protests, and such petitions.

Fr. Serge

My question was aimed at the time difference in the quotes I provided: (1) Rome hasn't ordered for sixty years [so ~1940: since the first printing/availability of some of the Recension books?] but (2) books have been allowed for forty years [so ~1960: since the 1965 liturgicon?]. What specifically are those of forty years versus those of sixty years?

I was struck (yesterday, when preparing my previous post) by the stipulation in Tisserant's letter that "The important thing is that the text and the rubrics be respected integrally."

I'm not a canon lawyer so I ask: Is this understood and accepted or conceded by all parties? Is this the understanding of Tisserant's letter, or is there some other directive?

But what is the will of the higher authority? The same Holy See (Oriental Congregation) that issued the books of the Ruthenian Recension (Prot. N.:1219/28 Rome, September 10, 1941) has also approved the revision (Prot. N. : 99/2001, 31 March, 2001) promulgated 6 January 2007.

There are intriguing parallels and differences with the two situations of the Roman liturgy and the Ruthenian. If one makes a combination table of old/new and official-language/translation one finds each has three entries but with a difference: there is no provision for the Latin-old in English; there is no provision for the English-new in Slavonic.

Dn. Anthony

ps A compilation of the Recension books, intended to be complete, is at Ruthenian Recension [patronagechurch.com]

I don't see how this can be the case. From the "Decree of Promulgation" in the liturgicon [my emphasis]: This book/text contains no Slavonic.

From the Forward of the "People's Book" [my emphasis]: This book/text contains no Slavonic.

Dn. Anthony

A close model? Not really, as the 1962 Missal is not normative for the Latin Church while the 1942 Ruthenian Liturgicon is normative for the Ruthenian Church (even though it has never been received and promulgated by the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh).

I agree strongly with Jeff that the restoration we need is to implement the Ruthenian Recension, with the leadership and encouragement of our own bishops. I have voiced this opinion all my adult life. Sadly, the Revised Divine Liturgy does not do this and, in fact, actually prohibits the celebration of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in our parishes.

No, they are saying no such thing. Rome has already ordered the complete observance of the official Ruthenian books (see the books themselves, the Ordo Celebrationis and the letters exchanged between Rome and our bishops for documentation). It is our bishops who have steadfastly refused to implement the directives given by Rome. The exception is Bishop Emil of Parma who promulgated the Ruthenian recension in 1970, but this was met with such resistance by the other bishops and a number of clergy that there was no follow through.

I will agree with part of this. If enough clergy and faithful appeal to Rome demanding access to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension it is likely that Rome will direct our bishops to allow this access. [And, to note again, we are not asking for access to an older form of the Liturgy (as do the Latins seeking the Liturgy according to the 1962 Missal) but to the normative Liturgy for the Ruthenian recension.]

As to translations, I do not remember anyone here advocating a permanent return to the 1965 translation. In the short term it makes sense since it readily available. In the longer term it would be very easy to publish a new edition with corrections. It is my recommendation and desire that such a new edition only change what is absolutely necessary. Then we leave it until the time when the bishops follow the Liturgical Instruction�s directive to prepare common editions and translations among Byzantines who pray the Divine Liturgy in English.

This statement is incorrect. The official Ruthenian recension has been technically officially prohibited in Parma since 1988, in Passaic since 1995 and in Van Nuys since about 3 years ago, with the first round of reforms being mandated by Bishop Andrew Pataki. There have been a few parishes that ignored the rulings but it is incorrect to state that the official Liturgy has been allowed. For most of our history in the United States the official Ruthenian Liturgy has been, at best, discouraged (see my comments elsewhere about Bishop Mihalak).

I agree.

We see in the few places where pastors have managed to implement in a full form that those parishes were thriving. I�ve seen a parish go from celebrating an abbreviated Liturgy (the lowest of �Low Masses�) with 30 people to a full and official Ruthenian Liturgy (with every litany and rubric taken correctly) with 140 in just a few years (and stay at 140 over 10 years all while burying another 140 people). That parish was also full of young people and had a number of people driving past other parishes to be part of the parish. [Contrast this to the Munhall Cathedral where the Liturgy (for several years now an experiment of the parts of the RDL) is not spirit-filled, few sing and people are leavingb despite a talented pastor and singers.]

My �Action Plan� for our Church remains the same as it was 20 years ago:

-The Council of Hierarchs promulgates the Ruthenian recension as normative.

-The full Divine Liturgy is implemented at the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals, and wherever and whenever the bishops visit a parish, and at all eparchial liturgical celebrations (with a special educational program).

-A new edition of the 1965 Liturgicon is printed (with only those corrections that are absolutely required) and used until common editions are available for all Byzantines.

-Bishops establish a �bare minimum� (roughly everything in the Levkulic Pew Book). Print new pew books with the complete text of the Divine Liturgy and gather cantors to prepare music where the music serves the text and (for evangelization purposes) is attractive to the American ear.

I have no doubt that as the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals are transformed into vibrant parishes there will be a �We want this in our parish� movement from the other parishes and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy will rise closer and closer to that given in the official Ruthenian recension books.

I do not believe this is accurate. Can Jeff or anyone else support this with documentation? I have been told that no direction has been given in writing. Several priests have indicated that at least in Passaic the verbal directives from the bishop and liturgical commission members have been unclear. Most Passaic priests I have talked with seem to understand the verbal directives as that the Divine Liturgy may still be taken in Slavonic but must follow the Revised Rubrics. Some have indicated that they feel that it would be disobedient to use Slavonic since the promulgation technically prohibits use of any Slavonic Liturgicons and / or pew books and the bishops have not given them approval in writing to do so. At best, the directives here have been unclear.

I thank Father Deacon John for his post.

I both agree and disagree with what he has posted.

Yes, the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs is the promulgator of the Revised Divine Liturgy. The promulgation is on their authority. It is they, not Rome, who are prohibiting the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the official Ruthenian recension. Rome has issued the official books of the Ruthenian recension with directives that they be implemented. The Ruthenian Bishops in America have steadfastly refused to promulgate these books. Bishop Emil Mihalik did promulgate them in 1970 but the other bishops (and a number of clergy) reacted so strongly against his promulgation that it was effectively stifled.

Canon 40 �1 of the Eastern Canons states: �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.� The Revised Divine Liturgy mandated by the Council of Hierarchs 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. The Revision actually prohibits the �faithful protection and accurate observance� of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the books published by Rome.

My earlier post built on the principle now given by the Holy Father. To restate it a bit more concisely, if the Holy Father has now ruled that those Roman Catholics who seek access to an older form of the Roman Mass have a legitimate spiritual right to it, it is very likely the Holy Father will allow the petitions of those of us who seek access to the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy.

Rome has identified the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and the other liturgical books that followed) as the normative (ordinary) form of the Eucharistic celebration in the Ruthenian Church. The Council of Hierarchs does not have the authority to overrule Rome in this. If the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh still considers itself as a member of the Ruthenian recension then the 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy published by Rome is still the normative Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Church in America. If the faithful believe that the Council of Hierarchs have overstepped their authority in issuing liturgical directives the faithful have the right to petition those in authority over the Council of Hierarchs. In the end, I believe that Rome will rule that the Council of Hierarchs may allow an abbreviated Divine Liturgy (i.e., set a minimum) but that they do not have the right to prohibit the celebrating of the Divine Liturgy according to its normative form.

Slava Isusu Christu!

For clarification purposes, could you or someone else explain exactly who are the members of the Ruthenian Council of Heirarchs? Information of this type is sometimes buried deeply on websites and requires lots of going from one link to another. It took me a good deal of time to find the members of the group who came up with the RDL. I had head several names, but had never seen a complete list until I found it on the Patronage Mother of God Byzantine Catholic Church in Baltimore MD. As a furthe question, I can't find it but remember someone saying that there was a crticism of the RDL on one church's website. I thought it was the Patronage Church in Baltimore, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know which church's website had that review?

And will anyone be listening to the RDL tonight, live from Parma?

Tim

The four bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh; see Byzantine Catholic Metropolita of Pittsburgh [patronagechurch.com]

Dn. Anthony

Yet, it seems as if that is what they have done (claiming Rome's direct approval too). Thank you administrator, for your posts, and for stating the problem so clearly.

I've been reading the Pope's decree again today, and the letter to the Bishops. Appealing to the principles of the Motu Proprio is certainly appealing. But Benedict is only offering the John XXIII missal as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There will be one Rite, but two Forms (ordinary and extraordinary).

Until the Revision of the Divine Liturgy by Archbishop Schott, Rome had always been clear what our ORDINARY form of the Divine Liturgy should be. By appealing to Rome asking that what is ORDINARY (that is, the whole Liturgy without abbreviations, corruptions, revisions, invented rubrics and inclusive language), be granted extra-ordinary status, is a petition I don't really like. It accepts that the Revised Liturgy is o.k., not only as an alternative, but as the ordinary version.

But the Revision is an error, and it is full of errors. I think petitions to Rome must not be based on the Motu Proprio, but it must object to the whole idea of an agenda driven revision of the Liturgy, as promulgated by Archbishop Schott. It takes the Church out of the Ruthenian Recension, and is a corruption of our heritage. It is just wrong, and not 'another form' of our one 'lex credendi'.

The Motu Proprio, shows that Benedict understands these questions, and may indicate that he would have a sympathetic ear to the crisis of conscience that we are having, by this terrible Revision of our beautiful Liturgy. But the principles of the Motu Proprio itself don't really apply directly. We are not simply petitioning for another 'form' of our Liturgy to be allowed. We are petitioning for our Liturgy to be restored to us, and that this revision (corruption) be forbidden.

Nick

No. It would be too painful.

Deacon Anthony is quite right. "Sole liturgical text" is a very clear and self-explanatory term, and I know of several pastors who have taken that quite literally. It does not at all provide for any other usage than the New Rite books if taken at face value. If any variation is allowed by the hierarchy, then the absolute value of "sole liturgical text" comes into serious question.

I knew the four Eparchs would be on the Council. But are they the only ones? Are they the sole members?

Tim