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

Dear John,

Pardon me, but I have never claimed that it was more faithful to the 1942 books; quite the opposite, I have mentioned things I did not like, and I was the SECOND person on this board to post to that thread, way back when. I did say, and continue to believe, that the changes will move many parishes closer in a number of ways to the 1942 books (by restoring the third antiphon/Beatitudes, verses at the prokeimenon and Alleluia, fuller troparia/kontakia, and omitted litanies for example.) If there are other questions, please refresh my memory. (I do recall one other, asking me to justify my belief that the new books are "better" at "growing the Church" - a belief which was pinned on me along the lines of "All revisionists must believe that the revision grows the Church better, and Jeff is a revisionist" - the latter part of which I certainly dispute. I feel no qualms about declining to justify a belief not my own that someone else attributes to me.)

I am asking specifically about Latinizations because quite a few of the changes in the new book are what I have described before: the bishops' apparent attempt at a parochial standard, where the previous books were hardly ever used (as Father Serge has attested: roughly, "Hardly anyone has participated in a complete service accordng to the new books"). Most of the "abbreviations" in the new books actually result in a LONGER service for most parishes, and no one has provided any evidence that a bishop has refused courteously requested permission to celebrate using complete antiphons and litanies.

On top of that, to say something is a Latinization is here a term of abuse - understandably so. Lumping all differences under that heading is inaccurate, and unhelpful to a real discussion.

So merely comparing the books does not provide a list of Latinizations. You have heard, right, of the "actual all-night Vigil" celebrated in Russia around 1911, with only SOME abbreviations, which was viewed by many as a wild and dangerous experiment? Abbreviation is by no means an automatic sign of Latinization.

So I am asking you to specifically list the Latinizations you see present in the service.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

There is a wonderful book written by Fr. Athanasius Pekar, OSBM entitled, "Our Slavic Heritage". This book was written on the occasion of the 1,100th anniversary of St. Cyril's death in 1969. Published by Byzantine Seminary Press Publications.

Two quotes I want to point out.

pg. 3 "Today, we are witnessing an interesting phenomenon. The Czechs, Slovaks and Croats, who abandoned Cyrillo-Methodian ideals in the past, are making a concerted effort to restore, in their history, the spiritual heritage of the Slavic Apostoles, SS. Cyril and Methodius, while we, Carpatho-Ruthenians, whose cultural and spiritual life has its roots in the Cyrillo-Methodian Christianity, are indifferent about their ideals and sacred trust."

pg. 29 "Let us cherish and preserve our great spiritual treasure, our Slavonic Liturgy with its melodius chant, as a sacred trust of our venerable ancestors."

This book is full of information about our wonderful Slavic Liturgy and the brothers (SS. Cyril & Methodius) that brought it to us.

I think this book needs to be reprinted and be a MUST READ for all Byzantine Rusyn Catholics, especially in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy.

Dear Rusyn31,

That is a wonderful book; I had my copy out a bit ago (and I've been working to further Vespers and Matins in our parishes for years- something Fr. Pekar stressed, both here and in his leaflets). I would love to see a more complete and spiritual observance of our rite - along with unabbreviated and un-"simplified" chants.

Jeff

I think that all of Fr. Pekar's books need to be reprinted and distributed en masse. He points out on many occasions on the extreme apathy of past bishops and clergy in regards to our Slavic (not to mention Rusyn) heritage and their willingness to magyarize (in the Aust.-Hung. Empire) or modernize today (1950's - 1960's) because of this apathy.

Anyone out there know of a print shop that would be willing to do so?

Dear Rusyn31,

"Our Slavic Heritage" IS still in print, from the Byzantine Seminary Press [byzantines.net] for $2.00 - along with the full set of leaflets, many of which Fr. Pekar wrote, if I recall correctly. I've asked them to consider putting the leaflets online.

The Seminary Press also distributes Slavonic liturgy and chant books, and historical materials.


Jeff

A correction: above I mentioned Father Serge's assertion that very few Greek Catholics had experienced complete services according to the Roman books for the Ruthenian Recension. In my attempt at summarizing his statement, I should have said "old books" or "the Ruthenian Recension books" rather than "new books", which was ambiguous in context.

My apologies!
Jeff

Jeff,

In what way does the 2007 RDL move many parishes closer to the 1942 books that a similar implementation of the 1964 Liturgicon could not?

That is the question under discussion.

I know of parishes that have lost five litanies with the RDL, so I am really interested in seeing the list you post.

You seem to be confusing the bishops willingness to issue a mandate and follow through to require it be done everywhere with a discussion about the quality of the 2007 RDL when compared to the 1964 Liturgicon, using the 1942 as the official definition of the Ruthenian Liturgy. The content of the revision and the bishops being willing to issue mandates are two different discussions.

If you (and anyone else) wishes to get a good understanding of the issues under discussion I highly recommend Father Serge's excellent book [patronagechurch.com] on the RDL as a primer.

John

Thanks for the update.

Pardon me, but you've changed the question. I am not comparing the new books with a "proposed" mandate, but with what was actually in use in parishes of the Pittsburgh metropolia - most of whom used the 1978 Lekvulic pew book, ommitted most or all of the materials marked "optional."

Compared with the Levkulic book:

The third antiphon, formerly mentioned but with no text provided omitted, is now required - and texts are given.

The Beatitudes (previously omitted entirely) are now provided, and required when the Typical Psalms are taken.

The Litany of the Catechuments and the Second Litany of the Faithful (formerly omitted) are now provided as optional.

The Litany over the Gifts (formerly optional) is now required.

The first part of the litany before the Our Father (formerly optional) is now required. The second part remains optional.

The Litany of Thanksgiving (formerly optional) is now required.

Pre- and post-festal propers (formerly omitted) are provided.

Common hymns for weekdays and classes of saints (formerly omitted) are now included.

The "kneel" and "sit here" rubrics, and the filioque (which WERE Latinizations) are gone.

In those respects, many parishes (if they use the new books) will end up celebrating longer services, and including parts of the Ruthenian recension that were customarily omitted.

Have those parishes formally asked for permission to contine to use the omitted litanies? Or is it more convenient to use this as ammunition against a common minimum standard?

Would it be even better to implement the much greater changes to would be involved if unabbreviated services were ordered? Well, I would love to see it, but I suspect I am in the minority. Certainly we're have forty years and not many of our parishes seem to be using them.

Back to my question, then: all these abbreviations far predate the Second Vatican Council, and aren't particularly "imitations" of Latin practice. What new Latinizations do you see in the new books? Please be specific, since you've seemed to indicate that there are many of them.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

So once these parishes who were serving a minimised Divine Liturgy are used to serving a 'fuller' Divine Liturgy as per the 2007 books will there then be yet another 'revision' requiring everyone to serve according the the full Ruthenian Recension? This is an assumption one might make reading the repeated statements of "many parishes are now doing more".

Would it not have been more logical to just make the necessary corrections in the 1965 text then work out a 5 (or even 10) year programme of instruction and gradual implementation of all of the items which had been ignored over the years? An immediate switch to a full Divine Liturgy would be just as ill-advised as the current implementation of the emasculated (in more ways than one) Pittsburgh Recension.

Or perhaps the BCC has been taking liturgical lessons from New Skete?

_____
Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Kobzar,

I would hope that many parishes are doing more in terms of reclaiming the long-abbreviated parts of the Divine Liturgy, above and beyond what's in Lekvulic; I just haven't been privileged to see very many.

I agree that moving directly to a full Divine Liturgy (and Vespers and Matins presumably - which we now have every year at the Uniontown pilgrimage) would have been quite disruptive as well, given the small number of parishes anywhere near there already. That is why I had said that if more (a fifth or a quarter) of our parishes were celebrating anything like an unabbreviated Liturgy, it would have been a lot easier for the bishops to justify moving more quickly, and would have been harder to leave out the "optional" parts that only a small minority use. At the same time, I wish there were such a plan announced, and I hope that some of the initiatives being taken bear fruit. (Judging from the requests that come in via the MCI website, there are a lot of parishes doing more with the liturgical cycle over the past 2-3 years.)

As far as New Skete - I haven't seen any actual "reorganization" or rewriting of the Divine Liturgy in the new books, or any abbreviations that weren't already of long standing; and our books for the other offices (from the MCI) are moving toward the Ruthenian standard rather than away from it, as your New Skete analogy might suggest.

Jeff

Jeff, you are the one who keeps changing both the question and the answer!

A comparison between the RDL and the �as celebrated� in many parishes is meaningless.

Also, a comparison between the Levkulic Pew Book and the new Pew Book are also meaningless. A new edition of the Levkulic Pew Book could have easily been printed with the missing parts, no Revision required. Indeed, a small number of parishes have long used an expanded edition of the �Green� book (with music) that contained every public word of the 1964 Liturgicon (including the full three antiphons, the typical psalms and Beatitudes, and all the litanies without abbreviation).

Comparisons should be made between the 1964 Liturgicon and the 2007 Revised Liturgy, using the official 1942 Liturgicon as the reference point. We are speaking of what is permitted with the Liturgicon, and how close it comes to the official Ruthenian Liturgy.

I agree that some, if not many, parishes will be forced to celebrate a longer liturgy than before, if the priest takes the new liturgy as it is written. For those parishes, that is a good thing and a step to getting them to be more eastern.

However, all the talk about restored litanies is somewhat humorous to me. Look at the litany before the Our Father, for example. The formerly split petitions are now mushed together into one, long run-on sentence. I used to get out of breath just listening to it sung. The litany after the Cherubic Hymn is the same. I don't understand that how anyone can say that a litany is restored when it is shortened or changed.

Unfortunately the prayers at the end of these litanies, now taken out loud, seem to over shadow the litanies (or take twice as long) and bring the action of the Liturgy to a screeching halt. Again, I understand the importance of these prayers and occasionally hearing them would be nice. But let's face it, once the people are used to hearing them, week in and week out, they'll tune them out. Any effectiveness is lost. The intricate balance of the people, the deacon (where there is one), and priest, each doing their part together is thrown off, and the majority of time is spent listening to the priest.

Finally, I haven't seen the new books in a while, but I seem to recall that rubrics for posture are included. Obviously, kneeling excluded.

Of course it's not meaningless! I have stated that many parishes will end up, as a result of the bishops' actions, celebrating a longer liturgy, and one which includes important elements which have been omitted by custom for decades. You have either diagreed, or seemed to view such a change as irrelevant. While some parishes will see a shorter liturgy if they do not ask and obtain permission to use additional antiphons and litanies, many parishes end up celebrating MORE of the Liturgy - directly contrary to the central claim that "the bishops are cutting up / shortening our services". For many parishes (perhaps the majority in Pittsburgh), this is not the case. We are talking about the actual results of implementation, and what the bishops actually did.

John, you've asked me to defend my positions, then restated my position or asked me to defend something different. I stated that many parishes will celebrate a longer Liturgy as a result of this change. That requires a comparison of what was served, witj the new books. Comparing what the bishops DID to what they MIGHT have done (and what none of our bishops in fifty years HAS done!) is another issue; my statements dealt only with the facts "on the ground", and the claim that OVERALL the changes resulted in a shorter Liturgy.

Jeff

That is an excellent point, John. I had never pondered that until now.