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

Implementation of a mandate will surely show it's fruit in time. We will have to wait and see whether that fruit quickly rots or ripens. For myself however, when something is forced down my throat, gagging is a natural reaction.

Jeff,

A comparison between the �as celebrated� and the RDL is meaningless. The discussion is about the content of the Revised Liturgy as compared to the content of the official Ruthenian Liturgy. Consider that the same effort (hopefully done in a more pastoral manner) could have resulted in a restoration that is authentic, and not one based upon now discarded 1970s Western principle of liturgical reform.

I�ve seen parishes move from among those having the most abbreviated liturgies to celebrating a very complete Ruthenian Liturgy, with the parishes growing as a result. It was not necessary to revise the Liturgy in order to raise the �as celebrated� standard.

I have long advocated that the way forward was for the bishops to 1) promulgate the full and official Ruthenian recension as normative for our Church, 2) set roughly everything in the Levkulic Pew Book as the current most abbreviated form allowable (plus the Third Antiphon and Beatitudes), 3) celebrate the complete and full Ruthenian Liturgy at the cathedrals and pro-cathedrals and everywhere the bishops went (for all eparchial gatherings) and 4) gently remove abbreviations over time as the clergy and faithful grew accustom to a fuller Liturgy and were catechized by it. Reprinting the Levkulic Pew Book with corrections and adding the missing parts is a simple task (and not even really necessary to begin the restoration since the missing litanies can be prayed without being specifically given in that book during the time when the new edition was being prepared).

Please explain to me why this plan (in the paragraph above) could not work on a national basis when it certainly did work at the parish level.

Please explain how the Revision is necessary to accomplish what a similar effort using the official rubrics and texts could not possibly accomplish.

Please give examples of where the rubrics promulgated in 1988 (Parma) and 1995 (Passaic) have led to parish revitalization that is so strong that it needs to be mandated across the country (and contrast it to the parishes that have been successful and have grown demonstrably by implementing the full, official Ruthenian recension).

John

Dear John,

You claimed there the new books promulgate Latinizations, but most of the discussion has involved either inclusive language (which the Greeks and Antiocheans have wrestled with too) and abbreviations that we've had for fifty years.

I am opposed to Latinizations. I am asking which specific changes in the new Liturgy involve the introduction of Latinizations into our services.

If what you mean is, "I don't like it, I'll call it Western", that's fine. But if you can, please list these Latinizations that you seem to think characterize the new books.

I don't disagree with your program, and wrote to our bishops years ago asking for something similar. (I also helped produce Vespers and Matins book, and saints' propers, that were MUCH more complete than what we had, in concert with cantors in ACROD, UGCC and ROCOR.) But they chose not to do it that way.

But this thread is not along the lines of, "You are our bishops, we are your flock, and we beg you to implement the full Ruthenian Recension," but rather "Rome, overrule our bishops!" Is that ANY way to convince our bishops they would have you on their side if they did ANYTHING less than exactly what you want?

So - to return to THIS thread. Earlier, you said that the changes introduced many Latinizations. (As I've mentioned, how many threads have expressed any pleasure when they REMOVED Latinizations? Instead, there were complaints about the way it was done - such as *gasp* taking more psalms than we used to at the Presanctified Liturgy, and *gasp* dividing them over several days so they are all said. How... Latin! Like kathismata!) Please list these Latinizations, if you would be so kind. Vague "spirit of the West" comments could mean anything; heck, Western liturgists years ago called for (*gasp* ) parochial Vespers!) What specific Latinizations have the new books added?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. Your argument that "the missing litanies can be prayed without being specifically given in the book" applies JUST as well to the new book as to the old ones.

P.P.S. By the way, if "Liturgy by committee" is "profoundly" out of keeping with our tradition, why do you reserve the right to approve of the Ruthenian recension, instead of championing the use of the 1905 Sluzhebnik? Aren't you being inconsistent here?

Jeff,

this paragraph is mind-boggling.

Our Bishops (past and present) had decades and decades to implement the full Ruthenian Rescension that Rome had mandated. Time after time, year after year they did not. In fact in Parma and Passaic, and then Van Nuys they implemented chopped up revisions of the Ruthenian Rescension. And now all four of our Eparchies are implementing a chopped up, watered down, feminized version with bad music on top of it. This pattern is not good. Questions of the letters from Rome go unanswered, etc.

And you question why we don't beg our Bishops to implement the correct and full Rescension? We have, we are, and we will. Since all that is being received is more of the same and a dial tone in our ears, another road has to be taken. And you do realize that all roads lead to Rome.


Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

Could you please point to the wording of the mandate by which Rome ordered our bishops to use the new books across their jurisdications? One of our bishops challenged me years ago to find one, and (sadly) I was unable to. The letters with the new books talk about Zamosc (which doesn;t apply to us), older priests who are EXCLUDED, and seminaries. When was the order given to use the new books?

I agree they have had decades - as have ALL OUR PRIESTS, any of whom for the past twenty years could have introduced virtually all of the official practices and faced very few problems over it, except from their congregations. Remember that they had books which have been lauded here as being complete and of great virtue. It it works so well for any parish, why isn't it used everywhere? As of January of this year, did we have five parishes that celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Recension with no abbreviations (all antiphons and litanies through Psalm 33 and antidoron)?

I was once told I was the only person in years who had raised the issue of the Ruthenian Recension with one particular bishop - and its quite possible that that was true. It may be that these changes end up being a stepping stone. But why wasn't there a petition on these boards, or in parishes, in 1996 (when the Liturgical Instruction came out) or in 1999, when the bishops called for a new translation of the Divine Liturgy?

Jeff

Jeff,

Have you read Father Serge�s excellent book?

Have you read Ratzinger?

Anyone who has not spent time in these books will not be able to see the issues.

As I have said so many times, compare the changes to the official Ruthenian recension liturgical books, then to the Liturgicons used by other Orthodox Churches, then to the Novus Ordo Latin Liturgy. Which mandates that many presbyteral prayers be prayed aloud? Which reduces litanies to an introduction and then the presbyteral prayer?

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) indicates that this desire to rework the Liturgy to educate man is based upon a misguided effort, and the Latin Church is now working diligently to discard that anthropologically-centered model in favor of a more authentic one. Can you not see that this is exactly what this Revision is copying (and Father David has admitted this on several occasions)? There are other examples but a list makes no sense since you can�t seem to get past this one example to see the principle being discussed, even though we have discussed it numerous times.

Regarding asking the bishops to implement the official Ruthenian recension I have asked them to do exactly that in many conversations during the past 20 years. It seems that since they have chosen not to implement the official Ruthenian recension but something different that they still believe that the Ruthenian recension is inferior, so they have recast it based upon the principles used in the 1970s by the Latins (yes, this whole revision is a latinization). At this point, since the bishops have promulgated the RDL, it is appropriate to continue to write to them (I have done so) and to write to Rome (I have also done so) in a polite but firm effort to request the official Ruthenian Liturgy.

It does not apply to the new books. Compare the 1964 Liturgicon with the 2007 Revised Liturgicon. The 2007 is incomplete. It is missing these prayers. While the faithful can easily sing �Lord, have mercy� or �Grant it, O Lord� when the text is missing from the Pew Book the deacon or priest cannot pray prayers that are missing. He will either need a supplemental text at hand or he will need to have them memorized. But, in case you have not noticed, Bishop Andrew has even forbid what is left of the Litany before the Lord�s Prayer (that abbreviated part of that made it into the Revised books!).

John

This is one interesting conversation. I don't know if it will be resolved to either side's satisfaction, but I am fascinated by this thread.

One question--we are talking about the changes and latinizations and such. One of my main concerns is about the changes in the music. I applaud putting in the musical notation. My wife is a professional musician and it always bothered her to attend DL and not know how to sing the prayers. Or, worse yet, have three or four groups of people sing something different ways.

So standardizing the music is a good idea. But how does changing the music to something that hardly anyone (if anyone actuallly does) recognize, returning us to our roots? Has our DL been latinized for so long that no one alive today can remember what it was like all those years ago? I was born in 1960 and served DL as an altar boy six days a week for years. At least five of those DL's were entirely in Church Slavonic since it was me, the priest and a dozen babas at 6:30 or 7am.

If people are giving examples of actual changes, either latinizations, abbreviations or anything else, how about talking about the musical changes made?

Tim

Exactly!

Jeff,

considering that full Rescension was ignored for decades, I'm surprised to see you wondering why people in our parishes didn't get together and demand the full Rescension. 90% of our people probably don't even know that the full Rescension exists because it was never implemented and ignored by our leaders past and present. So how in the world would they know to start a petition about something they didn't know about. Because the books that they were using had what they had, I'm sure our people considered those to be 'complete and accurate'. Much like the current books will be viewed as 'complete and accurate' which of course they are not and that's why it's amazing to see you write on here time after time that the full liturgy can be taken it just wasn't all printed and it can be in Slavonic even though that's not in there and disregard the language in the promulgation letter that says these are the only texts.

I can't but help to wonder what would happen if the full Rescension was printed, then how many people would start asking questions about all of the things being skipped. But, that's just daydreaming....


Monomakh

Dear John,

Thanks for responding. So the presbyteral prayers taken aloud is your major Latinization? Would it be better to OMIT Litanies (as we used to do) rather than have to listen to the presbyteral prayer at the end? And if the presbyteral prayer that ends each litany is ONLY for the priest, what is the problem with his using a supplementary text until a full text is available?

Jeff

That's my point, Monomakh - John has told us that the full recension WAS printed and that many parishes used it, and have been growing for years. I just haven't run into any yet. Why haven't they had more influence?

Or is the answer (as Professor Thompson noted) that it will take both education, and episcopal intervention? In which case calling for disobedience or flight when one disagrees with episcopal decisions makes it LESS rather than MORE likely than our bishops could actually promulgate a more complete liturgy.

Jeff

What was stated at the Parma Clergy Convention is that the Parma Eparchy will not be using any supplement. Jeff is incorrect when he states that the fuller Liturgy can be taken, because in reality it can't and the Bishop won't grant permission. Just ask any priest from the Eparchy of Parma for validation.

Maybe, just maybe, the way to start a petition and get parishioners to take notice is to start mentioning the lack of Slavonic in the books, and that it's trying to be phased out. They may not have been lucky enough to experience the full recension, but they can mourn over the loss of Slavonic. Pointing that issue out may be a beginning.

Jeff,

Visit St. Emilian's Byzantine Catholic Church in Brunswick, Ohio.

Jeff added this P.P.S. after I had responded to the rest of the post.

Jeff, I reserve no right to approve the Ruthenian recension. Unlike the Liturgical Committee, I respect the official books promulgated by Rome for all of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension (in this discussion we are speaking of the official 1942 Liturgicon). I would not champion the 1905 Sluzhebnik because it is not official for our Church. I have repeatedly stated in these discussions that should there be mistakes in the 1942 Liturgicon correcting them could only be done so by all of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) acting in concert.

There is no inconsistency in my position.

Thank you, Stephanie. That's the kind of information I have been asking for SOMEONE to provide if they actually have it.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff