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

We would welcome you with Open arms...unfortunately, the downfall of the HT community began to excel with His Grace Andrew's revisions back in the mid 1990's...they once again "stepped on the gas" when Rev. Malitz took over and was "hell bent" on following His Grace's directives to the letter of the law...I know I along with our other cantor was taken to the wood shed several times for doing things such as singing Christ as Risen at periods during the paschal season when it should have been phased out according to "His Grace"...the phasing out of Christ is Risen...was definitely a sore spot with many parishioners...

When HT was closed...it was very clear that to the only way to retain our rescension was to join ACROD...they aren't perfect...but they are the best we have...and I have noticed, at least locally...the last several years they are getting in touch with a fuller liturgy as well...the official books only have the priests prayer between the antiphons...we are actually taking the litanies...

Chris

Yes, unfortunately the reduction of "Christ is risen" is one part of the 1940's Roman books that is NOT popular. Even those who promote the Roman books often insist that they should be ignored on this point.

In some points like these, Bishop Andrew directed that the Ruthenian Recension books be followed exactly - and was roundly criticized on those very points. In other places he varied from them, though on one of them Father Serge remarked that he was actually following the principle of Ruthenian reform where the published books did not. *shrug* People don't like change, even to those places where our existing books are wrong (e.g. the verses that Msgr Lekvulic added to the Paschal third antiphon).

Jeff

Follow the Recension or not the heirarchs are going to be criticised....that's a given...I think the issue here is more a loss of "pastoral sensitivity"...it's clear that those parishes that moved slowly and methodically with education along the way moved in the right direction...taking into account the "traditions" (even if they were wrong) and not simply taking them away, rather, replacing them with something else more in line with our traditions...

I know I bring up my former closed parish alot...but I believe it is a perfect example of what is occuring on a grand scale (Metropolia wide)...HT was a latinized greek catholic church (no iconostasis, stations of the cross on the walls and celebrated with benediction every Wednesday during lent, three marble steps leading to our marble rectangular altar, and even a communion rail that was utilized until around 1977)...we were one of the last parishes to have an icon screen installed (although I have seen pictures that it was attempted to install a type of icon screen utilizing the communion rail back in the 1960's)...it wasn't until our 90th anniversary back in the mid 80's that one finally was erected...from what I remember back in the 1970's we were a dying church...but man could we get a full house for Christmas and Easter when the "Hunkies" came out...but they were no where to be seen the rest of the year...except for ethnic dinners...

After removing the communion rail and asking people to simply come stand in a communion line ruffled some feathers...but we had enough people from "the old country" who grumbled since they were the ones who didn't have problems with the Latinizations since they were "educated" when those were put in place in the first place that was how they were showing they were "American"! But they remembered how it was in Hungary and many of them stayed around, even though alot of them grumbled loudly...they, as can be expected, began to die off due to age, and the remaining few who were in touch with being eastern, helped bring about changes to a more traditional eastern style...the icon screen was installed, the holy table was cut down and removed the steps...the stations of the cross remained during lent but taken down during resurrection matins not to re-appear until the next great fast (gradually trying to "get them out permanently" (which did finally occur in the 1990's), we even began using incense at all Divine Liturgies not only the "high mass" which was in Hungarian...during this time as well...a tremendous growth occured...again it was a sign that if you take a fuller rescension it draws people, although, you will always lose some who don't want any changes (even if they were wrong in the first place)

Following the 1980's there were 2 final pastors that wanted what they wanted when they wanted and how they wanted...they drove people away...which led to the ultimate collapse (the collapse got alot of help from above)We went from a very latinzed parish to one which was becoming very eastern and growing...the lack of pastoral sensitivity from the two final parish priests and the current bishop were nothing more than crushing blows...

This is the same pattern I have seen in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh for some time now...keep writing letters...hopefully, someone, somewhere, will finally get it...

Almost forgot my point in writing this...
The one thing that got us through the turmoil of the late 70's and 80's was people who remembered the traditions and were able to assist and accept the returning to those traditions...what the Metropolia is lacking...are the number of people who remember Eastern Traditions not latinized eastern traditions...those who could help with implementing a return to the "ruthenian recension"...there is nobody (at least very few) who would view the RDL as the "ruthenian recension" honestly and back it...so it comes across as "listen to daddy" I know what's best for you...like the bosses in the twin towers telling their employees to go back to work...there is no need to leave...until it was too late...

Sorry if this is disjointed...I think people get my point...but being at work I already spent too much time on this...

Chris

A modest request - Soviet-style acronyms are destructive of language, and particularly questionable when used in reference to what is holy.

Might I therefore request that one refer to the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese by its name?

Fr. Serge

Jeff brings up a good point. Lack of consistency leads to lack of credibility. One cannot ignore the official books on major rubrics (on rubrics used at every Divine Liturgy; like litanies, some of which are now actually prohibited) and then appeal to the same official books to support the restoration of lesser rubrics (i.e., when to sing �Christ is risen�) and expect to win the respect and support of the people you lead. (This principle is valid in all aspects of life.)

Yes, people do not like change. It is difficult to get people to change even when it is necessary, they see the value of it, and embrace it. It is almost impossible to get people to change when the change is unnecessary, they do not see the value of it, and they do not embrace it (and indeed, when there is no value in some elements of the change).

As I have said so many times in these discussions, the best way to accomplish change is to get people to own it (to �buy into it�). In this case the bishops could have 1) promulgated 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, 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.

Making the Ruthenian recension normative and appealing to it as the standard sets the goal. Education and pastoral sensitivity takes effort but does work. I have had the pleasure of hearing pastor (ten years ago) call and tell me that after one of the adult education classes on the Liturgy where he had been teaching about the Liturgy one of the older women asked �why don�t you do the thing where you pour hot water into the chalice?� He asked the group �That is part of our Liturgy but at some point they stopped doing that. Do you want us to do that here?� The answer was a resounding �Yes.�

Dear Chris,

I agree with you, more than you might expect. No matter how good a text was produced, there should have been more education, and more pastoral sensitivity shown - and that applies to most of the changes over the past 40 years. There also should have been more cooperation with the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox - a cooperation which looked like it might happen when Metropolitan Judson and Metropolitan Nicholas met in 1999.

Jeff

I think John touched on a deep issue here, and that is a woeful underestimation (or undervaluing) of the laity's love of the old and singable liturgy, and their interest in learning more about it.

Two years or so ago Parma organized a presentation called "Heaven on Earth" in which a priest and some others walked through and explained the prayers in the Divine Liturgy. As a newbie I figured that our family was learning and everyone else came for the free lunch. Not so! I think the Q&A period surprised the organizers. Many attendees had reasonable and thoughtful questions, many of which they must have mulled over for quite a while. There wasn't nearly enough time to answer all the questions.

I thought it was odd to have the presentation before the imposition of the RDL--maybe the powers that be didn't want to get ridden out of town on a rail. But one thing I got out of it was the desire of the laity to be better informed about the history of the liturgy. This was not a pray, pay, and obey crowd.

John Murray touches on something vitally important. But it is also something that involves the type of subjective analysis that each of do with most of the events of our lives (be it Sunday Liturgy or going to the movies).

Good liturgy is also good theatre. Like everything else in life people embrace the things they like and walk away from the things they don�t like. I enjoy going to the movies, but don�t go that often (maybe less than once a year?) because I find most movies to be either boring or offensive. But if they made movies that I found really attractive I would go to them. While one cannot make a direct comparison between going to the movies and going to Liturgy one can use such a comparison to make a point.

The style of Liturgy Ruthenians have is one where the congregation participates. I have a friend who is Russian Orthodox who pointed this out humorously. He said: �In the Russian Church the priest, deacon and choir pray. In the Greek Church the priest, deacon and psalti pray. But in the Carpathian Church everyone prays!� Not very accurate but it does make a point.

For the average parishioner the reform 1) changes the words and melodies he has memorized and 2) changes his role from one where he was almost continually active to one where he is far more passive (i.e., listening to the priest pray). Why would he wish to do either?

I�ve written to this before but will summarize my points.

To understand the first point, imagine how much cooperation you would get from someone if at Christmas you handed him a revised version of �O Come, All Ye Faithful� in which the words were similar but different and the music was similar but different. Why should he be interested in relearning this carol when he has had it memorized for 40 or more years? Even if you get him to sing it the way it has been changed, when he is at home he is going to sing it the way he originally learned it. It would be far easier to get him to stop singing this carol and learn an entirely new carol then it would be to get him to relearn it. Cantors like ByzKat (Jeff) may sleep with Boksaj under his pillow but most of our people don�t. And most under 50 who attend Ruthenian parishes only know the �Gray� and �Green� books and see that as prostopinije. After 40 years of use it is wrong to force these people to relearn what they know from memory. And it looks very hypocritical for the bishops to say they can modernize the Liturgy and even embrace politically correct gender neutral English but we must go back and treat the Boksaj melodies as canonical, never to change. [Lesson: Someone's idea of perfection is often the enemy of what is perfectly good.]

On the second point, consider the celebration of the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and those who have not worshiped at one can hear one by going to the home page and listening to one from Pascha to get a feel). Right from the beginning the people are actively involved in worship. One can see the Liturgy �build� from the first �Amen� to the �Holy God� and then drop during the epistle, Gospel and homily. It then picks up again with the Litany after the Gospel and builds, and the �liturgical fervor� keeps building (because there are not that many periods during which the people are not singing) right up until the �One is Holy�. People are attracted by active participation, and this is why so many have fond memories of what they often call the �Slavonic High Mass�.

In the Revised Divine Liturgy the role of the lay worshiper moves from almost totally active to being much more passive. His role has become much more one of being a listener and less that of an active participant. Each time the �liturgical fervor� builds that rise is leveled by the action coming to a halt while the priest recites a long prayer. [And, as Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has observed, the people very quickly tune out those prayers, beautiful as they are, because they are now commonplace, which again demonstrates that making the Liturgy more about education and less about worship doesn�t work.] The result is that the �liturgical fervor� never rises as high and the people are not as attracted.

In the long run if the �average Joe� does not like the changes he will eventually stop attending Liturgy at the Ruthenian Church and start attending Liturgy somewhere else (or nowhere else). Appeals to obedience do not work, especially in a Church were we have educated our people that being Catholic is paramount and being Byzantine is only secondary (i.e., there are choices in Catholic worship). I know a number of people who became far less active when the 1995 reforms were mandated in Passaic. They didn�t voice a single complaint. They gave it a chance. Then missed a Sunday. Then two. And pretty soon they were only coming once in a great while. When queried the comments were along the lines of: �It�s just not the same� or �I don�t like it enough to drive all that way when the Romans are just up the street.�

Again, this is a major element, one that is very subjective but also very important. Ratzinger identified the problem in the models used in the Latin Church and we see that they are starting to consider the possibility of pulling back from some of them. And yet we copy them. [Lesson: Liturgy is not about educating the faithful but all about the faithful worshiping God.]

People are attracted to what is authentic. And the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy is very authentic.

It's not too late for the bishops to do what is proper and just, to rescind the Revision and promulgate the official Ruthenian Liturgy, and then take the time to pastorally raise the Church up to where it should be.

Very well said. There are a lot of very good points, some of them so subtle and "unconcsious" that we don't really understand them until we hear it said by someone else. The DL is NOT about education. It is first and foremost about worshipping God. Thanking him for delivering himself up, even unto the cross, so that we may live. Can one do that silently? I guess so. But when someone feels strongly about something the natural reaction is to express your feelings verbally, physically and with passion.

Do you love your spouse or child? Do you say silently "I love you." Sometimes. But what do we do most of the time--we look them directly in the eye and hug them tightly (the physical part of expressing feeling). We say outloud "I love you!" (The verbal part of expressing our feeling) and most of all, we say and do it with feeling. with passion. We hug them hard. We kiss them hard. We smile at them when we look them in the eye and say "I love you."

Gee, aren't we supposed to love God? And how better than to do it phsyically, verbally and with passion.

What made the Kievan ambassadors go back to the Prince and say that this was the religion we are looking for? Was it lack of passion? Was it physical passivity? Was it murmuring a prayer occassionally while someone else talked? No. What made them say that they didn't know if they were in heaven or on earth? It was exactly what was just said--church is theatre. It builds, it ebbs and flows. It leaves one satisfied and happy. And wanting to come back again.

What do you think? Is it just me who feels that strongly about wanting to go to DL? Not because it's an obligation, but because I WANT to.

Tim

Fr. Deacon Lance is correct regarding the 1970 GIRM. What I cited was from the 2000 instruction on the Roman Missal. So what appears to have occurred is an organic development during the ensuing 30 years, which is now codified to reflect that development.

Thank you, Father Deacon John, for posting this information again.

You might be correct that it is an organic development in the Roman Mass. But Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has written that there are some problems with this custom, which it hasn�t worked out as intended, and has stated that maybe silence is best. If the man who is now the Holy Father has not accepted this custom as an organic development then the Spirit might still be working. I did appreciate what Bishop Peter J. Elliot (auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Melbourne) wrote recently, about how the �East maintained [the sense of a holy mystery] through the universal liturgical paradox of concealing so as to be revealed.�

As to the East, of course, this custom of praying the anaphora aloud to educate the faithful may indeed be developing organically. That is why I recommend liberty as the best way to provide a fertile ground for the work of the Spirit. Given that the vast majority of the Byzantine Churches still forbid the custom it will be many generations before we know if that is where the Spirit is leading.

I read this post a few days ago and was bothered by it but let it go. But at DL for the Prophet Elias it re-entered my mind. I, like all of you are affected and have chosen to follow my shepherd in humility and obedience. At the parishes I serve we are in the seventh week with the changes and I am now starting to better appreciate them. With the added litanies and third Antiphon I don't have to be concerned about which parts I take if I go to a another parish -- we are more consistent across the United States.

I am beginning to feel that our Liturgy is more cohesive. Before deacons it was participation by the priest and the congregation led by a cantor. With the addition of a deacon concelebrating the DL has changed, the deacon's parts have been restored, the congregation and cantor's parts have remained the same.
But the priest, the person who is ordained to offer these prayers, to ask the Holy Spirit to accept our gifts and, with the priest's words of Consecration, to change them to the Body and Blood of Christ, has a REDUCED role. Now the revision has restored and honored the presbyter's role with the prayers taken aloud.

As I stand there as a deacon with my orarion aloft and mentally unite my people in the nave with the priestly prayers, I am in awe. The icon of the Pantocrator becomes real, we truly are before the throne of God seeking His mercy and becoming one with him in this wonderful Theophany.

With the revision, the Liturgy flows more, its not chopped up where the people only hear the last line of the priestly prayer. The Consecration is not "over in a flash" while the people are singing away while this "Theophany" is taking place.

I am still making adjustments, but I am surprised with this gift that I did not expect.

I pray that the singing will improve and the people will once again feel comfortable and fully "enter into heaven" for the Divine Liturgy. And I feel confident that it will, but it will take time and loving work.
________

As to the East, of course, this custom of praying the anaphora aloud to educate the faithful may indeed be developing organically. That is why I recommend liberty as the best way to provide a fertile ground for the work of the Spirit. Given that the vast majority of the Byzantine Churches still forbid the custom it will be many generations before we know if that is where the Spirit is leading.

Our esteemed Administrator made the above comment and I truly appreciate it. As the Holy Spirit acts He will also inspire adjustments to the language issue.

All I suggest is that everyone attend the DL with an open mind, without pride. If we are good singers we may tend to overemphasize that people come for the singing. Singing is important, but a one to two year disruption (for a couple of full liturgical years) in the singing should not be a reason to leave the church or to lose one's peace.

Voice your concerns with charity and facts if you are so inclined, but do not let your heart be disturbed by the devil who seeks rebellion in our church.

Dear Paul,

I respect your decision to 'follow the shepherd'. And I accept your experience of the revised Liturgy, but I don't share it. I find the new Liturgy horrible. I don't know how you can say some of those words and ugly phrases.

While I respect your decision to 'follow the shepherd' it also burns me up.

I will follow my shepherd, the bishop, if he is calling me to greater Gospel witness, more generous giving, more faithful Christian living. I will follow him, and support him, in every way, if he is doing his job!

His job, is to defend our Church from all attackers, and defend the true faith, and right worship, faithfully handing on what we have received to the next generation. He is, and must be, the guardian of the true faith.

But our bishop has taking my Church out of the Ruthenian recension, he has altered the timeless tradition, substituting instead, trendy theories, questionable agendas, and social experimentation! It is outragious.

Trust the bishops you say! How I want to.

But this really burns me up. We're paying out millions and millions of dollars, and suffering untold sufferings, because people said 'trust the bishops, don't ask questions, they can do what ever they want'.

They can't do whatever they want. They have to enforce the rules of the Church! They have to defend the tradition against its enemies. They have to preach the gospel in season and out of season.

Why do they think they are CEO's of some kind of business, chairmen of the board of some kind of company, hiding behind their board room tables? Because, if they were out among their people, if they were listening to the faithful, if they were pastors instead of administrators, this fiasco never would have happened.

I am sorry. But 'trust the shepherd' really doesn't do it for me any more. How I pray for a trustworthy shepherd. But we are being fleeced for millions and millions of dollars because of their mistakes, misjudgements, cowardice, and errors.

In the U.S.A., we have to hold our bishops to account. And in this Liturgy, as in so much else (some of it documented on the internet), they have proven again, that they are letting us down.

Let me make this point. The bishop's job is to DEFEND the tradition! When he is doing his job, he will have all my support.

Nick

In my quest to preserve the true Rusyn (Ruthenian Recension, although I shudder at the thought of using the word Ruthenian....we are Rusyn!) Slavonic Divine Liturgy, I am now up to 120 names on my petition.

I urge other churches to do the same. Many people have asked me if I would go to their churches, but I am reluctant to do so. I think individual parishes should do it themselves.

Too bad we could not get an online petition to get the common parishioner that just uses email but cannot post like we do. Are there any techo-geeks out there in byzcath.org land that could do this?

The 120 names I have so far, represents a simple majority (as far as I am aware) of the active parishioners of our church. We have 300 families at our church, but only 1/3 of them attend services regularly. The more names I get, the better it will be as I send it off to our pastor, the Archbishop, Papal Nuncio and Pope. I will also attach a cover letter describing how our Rusyn ancestors brought to America our great Slavonic Liturgy with Carpatho-Rus' prostopinije, and how we feel it is being hijacked today by the advocates of this, "New Revised Liturgy".

So, what now......????? I don't know, let the chips fall where they may...

You know, I was talking to someone in my parish (I don't know if this is true, I hope it isn't), and they said that the bishops and the seminary professors who are pushing this revision of the Liturgy, know and accept that they are going to loose people, and parishes are going to loose families, over this new Liturgy. They know it, and they accept it. They don't care. Having a revised Liturgy and pushing the new books and the new music is more important than the people.

Does that sound like 'shepherds'? What about Jesus, who went after the lost sheep, and in his prayers, was glad that he did not loose even one of the sheep the Father had given him? Why don't we have shepherds something like that?

They don't care! My bishop didn't even send an acknowledgment after my letters to him.

I would be devoted to my bishop, if I felt he cared about me too. But I'm afraid he doesn't.

That is the triumph of ideologies over people. I think it stinks. That is the triumph of lies, over the truth. It makes me sad.

Nick