www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Keep Writing Letters!

I don't agree. It has never been about majority or popular opinion. It is about right and wrong. Inclusive language is wrong. Abbreviating and revising the Liturgy is just wrong.

I don't want attend the Petras recension, or the Schott recension. I want the Ruthenian recension. Obviously, the revision got the majority of the commission to agree, and the majority of the bishops to agree. But even with majority approval, it is still wrong.

What we need, and what we must have, is a real liturgical renewal. We need a beautiful and poetic English translation of the Ruthenian recension, that is accurate, complete, faithful, and true. One that is free from inclusive language and any other political agenda.

Because it is agenda driven, I am optimistic that it will appear dated and intolerable within a very short time. It is what happens whenever you embrace and enshrine the fads of a fading generation. It is the last gasp, of a hopeless cause.

The Ruthenian recension, even if it only has a minority following today, is timeless, and beautiful. It will be back, when this disaster of a revision looks dated and tawdry. We haven't long to wait, either.

Nick

I've held off writing to Rome intentionally until the Motu Proprio came out, basically to use it in detail as a striking, direct, and very recent example of precedent. Thank you, Papa Benoit.

Excellent. The more such letters, the better. Incidentally, while it is essential that such letters are sent to all the right people in Rome (including the Pope), I venture to predict that since the new Prefect of the Oriental Congregation is not yet a Cardinal, we shall wait until November for an effective response (the consistory for the creation of new Cardinals is expected in November). The Holy Father goes to Castelgandolfo either tomorrow or the next day. In the summer the weather in Rome is unbearable and the place is full of tourists, so the people who work there take vacations in the summer if at all possible (I learned many years ago never to go to Rome in the summer if I can possibly avoid it - the libraries I want are all closed in summer).

But keep those letters coming!

Fr. Serge

Well,

Week 2 and I am up to 70 signatures on my petition to return to the Liturgy my ancestors brought to this land from the Rusyn homeland.

Once I get a majority, I will submit it to our pastor and then send a copy to the Archbishop.

It probably will not do any good, but if I did not try, then I would be as guilty as those that keep the status quo.

Make sure to send it to the Papal Nuntio and to the Holy See.

Fr. Serge

I shall, thanks for the reminder...

Fantastic! Keep up the good work.

Keep writing to Rome!

The new pro-nuncio speaks English and responds to letters.

Update for yunz all (hehehe a Pittsburgh thing...)

Week 3 and I am up to 90 names. I have not even made it to Saturday p.m. Liturgy where they know about my petition and are waiting for me, I'll have at least another 40-50 names. I will get there next week....when I get to approx. 1/2 of the active parishioners (~120 parishioners), I will submit the petition to our pastor, the Archbishop, the Apostolic Annuncio in D.C., and to Pope Benedict XVI.

Because we have a great cantor for 9 a.m. Liturgy (who can read music and sing quite well), it was not as bad. In the past, I used to go and sing bass for Liturgy, but I refuse to pick up those hideous green monsterous books...

Again, the best time we sung today was when we sang Slavonic without the words in the books.......hmmmmm, thought that was suppose to deter us in regards to singing the Liturgy brought to us by our Rusyn ancestors? Guess what, the parishioners are saying their peace.

As many parishioners stated in the last few weeks, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" Good question, any of the heirarchy want to answer this question... Another parishioner stated this morning, "I will become Orthodox before I Latinize". Wow! What a statement. I am thinking on doing this as well. I know Metropolitan Nicolas Smisko personally, I am sure he would not mind converting me to the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese.

Rusyn31 quotes a parishioner: "Another parishioner stated this morning, "I will become Orthodox before I Latinize".

Latinization is "imitating the outward appearance of the Latin Rite out of feeling of inferiority of one's own rite." We do many of the same things as the Roman rite: read an epistle and gospel, recite the words of institution of our Lord, etc. Using new music based on moe traditional melodies, or saying the anaphora aloud, or not saying three litanies (not found in the Roman rite anyhow) are not "latinizations" Nor has the order of the liturgy in your parish changed dramatically from before the promulgation. People may not like the changes, but if they oppose the Restored Divine Liturgy because it is a "latinization," then they are certainly misrepresenting what the new translation is about.

The revised divine liturgy is a modernization of the rite, not a Latinization of it.

The people in my parish oppose the Revised Divine Liturgy because it is not what our Rusyn ancestors brought to this country 100 yrs. ago. I am unsure what tradition this is suppose to be, but it certainly is not the Carpatho-Rus' prostopinije that we grew up with. The re-translated English words I can deal with. What I, along with at least 100 others so far cannot tolerate is the new music, the, "traditional melodies". If it is traditional, why hasn't anyone heard it before now? The people in my parish are angry that not one word in the new books are in Slavonic. Slavonic WAS a constant at our Sunday Liturgy for close to a century, respected and honored by everyone, even for the younger parishioners like myself.

As I have posted many times, we sing better, louder, and with more heart-felt passion in Slavonic than with the "new tradition" Restored Divine Liturgy. Again, either listen to the radio apostolate or come to our church and listen in person.

Throughout the decades, our great cantors such as Prof. Parvensky, Prof. Karol taught Carpatho-Rus' prostopinije. That tradition was handed down to our previous and current cantors. Many of our first cantors here in America were trained in Uzhorod, is that not the tradition we should be keeping?

It is not a secret that the Greek Catholic Churches in Europe have changed everything they do to fit the majority nationality and/or ethnicity, all but throwing out the traditions kept by our Rusyn ancestors. Other threads on this board talk about that Slovakization and Ukrainianization of the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church abroad. Are we doing the same thing to our Rusyn roots, as they are doing in Slovakia and Ukraine for the sake of modernization?

Do we have to end up being like the Greek Catholic Rusyns in Europe? That is petitioning Rome for a purely Rusyn bishop just to keep the traditions of our people alive?

If you come to our parish, you can see on either side of our church two Ukrainian churches. One was Catholic and went Orthodox in the 1920's. The other is the current Ukrainian Catholic church that broke from the Orthodox in the 1950's.

Anyway, 100 yrs ago, we went to that original Ukrainian Catholic Church, seeing no apparent differences. After only a few months, the differences in the Ukrainian and Rusyn styles of prostopinije were apparent, and arguments formulated between them. This is the primary reason why we founded the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church right across the street. We wanted to keep our Rusyn traditions, not keep or conform to anything or anyone else's traditions.

Also, many parishioners are angry that nobody came to our church to ask or to see what we wanted. Was it the same in other parishes? I know that there were some Spiritually Conferences, but from what I understand, all questions were pre-screened and there was no real debate or open talk, just a one-way dialogue on how the Restored/Revised Liturgy will be carried out. It would have been nice to have been a part of the decision making. After all, isn't the church about the parishioners as well as the clergy (and everyone else)?

Father David is only partially correct; some elements of the reform are not an imitation of the outward appearances of the Latin Liturgy. Others are. Father David is wrong in suggesting that it is a restoration or merely a new translation. It is neither. It is not Eastern. The whole idea and ethos of this reform is rooted in the same theories that took hold of the Western Liturgy in the 1970s and 1980s, theories that did no good to the Western Church and which they now are struggling to correct, with much pain.

Father David correctly states that Latinization comes from a feeling that our liturgical tradition is inferior and inadequate. But apparently the committee that revised our Liturgy also felt that our beloved official Ruthenian recension was inferior and inadequate. Otherwise they would not have felt compelled to abandon it and change it to conform to the principles of some anthropologically-centered Western liturgical theories that were in vogue a generation ago. Far from championing inclusively, this committee has excluded so many by its imposition of these now obsolete Latin theories. The whole idea of revising the liturgical tradition by a select committee is entirely foreign to Eastern Liturgy. This committee�s reform is a latinization on a much deeper and more profound level then simply erecting Stations of the Cross or putting a Sacred Heart statue in our churches. This reform strikes at the very soul of Eastern worship. A reform of this type has never been done before and can only be seen as an influence that has come into our Church from avant-garde centers of Western liturgical experimentation. It must be rejected in favor of our authentic and official Ruthenian Liturgy.

The Church has moved on from such nonsense as is found in this reform. Authenticity to sacred tradition is �in�. Trendy agendas are �out�. Fidelity, faithfulness and integrity are the buzzwords of the new millennium.

Dear John,

Wasn't our "official Ruthenian liturgy" (which I care about deeply, and which we at the MCI are STILL correcting existing services to match) prepared by a committee, at the request of bishops, and over the objections of some priests and laity? (I don't deny the value of these books, only the idea that they somehow came "from the people".) And didn't Rome in the 1990's suggest that the anaphora might be taken aloud?

For purposes of discussion, could you please list the Latinizations you see introduced in the new books - distinguishing them from abbreviations of long standing in our church?

I think this might make it clearer what you mean.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

You hit the nail squarely on the head with this post. Modernization was a failed Latin experiment and they continue to struggle against the damage that was inflicted. That is why the "refomed Liturgy" is so perplexing to me. Why does an Eastern Church mimic the errors of a Latin catastrophe a generation later?

Your post brought tears to my eyes.

_____________________________
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind

Jeff,

Yes, the official books were prepared by a committee. That committee sought to prepare books that were authentic, preserving the Ruthenian liturgical recension. It did not seek to reform the recension according to already abandoned Western models (as did the current committee).

Regarding the aloud praying of the Anaphora, read the Liturgical Instruction. It most certainly did not call for it to be prayed out loud at all times and in all places following the Latin model, introduced by mandate. It sought only that people be familiar with it. Towards that end it asked the Church only �to study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud.� It called only for "study", most likely because it knew that the custom it was referring to was not an Eastern one. It also makes clear through out the document that all liturgical renewal and reform would need to be done together, with all the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) acting in concert.

As to listing the specific latinizations, I direct you to many of my previous posts. Many, if not most of them, have been discussed. If you wish to see them more clearly take a 1964 �Ruthenian Liturgicon� and the 2007 �Revised Divine Liturgy� and place them side by side. Compare the rubrics and texts and note the differences. Then examine the changes and ask whether they flow from traditional Byzantine Liturgy (something you�d find in our official liturgical books or in those books published by Constantinople or Moscow) or whether they flow from 1970s Roman Catholicism.

I remind you that you have been asked and agreed to provide a listing of how the 2007 RDL is more faithful to the official 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy than is the 1964 edition. We are still waiting for your posts on that and several other questions.

John