www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Implementing the New Liturgy: how we are doing it.

It is the Eastern Christian tradition to not include the filioque and to acknowledge Mary as Theotokos. Removing latinizations from the liturgy is a good thing.

I've been told time and time again that the purpose of the RDL is to grow our churches. Pisankar points out that people are leaving because of this chopped-up liturgy. What good will it serve us to have people walking in the front door, and others walking out the back door. Here's a news flash -- we're not growing our church that way, we're simply swapping parishioners. Obviously the RDL was not thought about on this level. And, on a more serious note, who will account for those lost souls?

The thing is - where are these lost souls going ?







are they actually going anywhere ? or are they just going nowhere ?

Dear Tim,

You ask why one might be happy that the Filioque is removed from the Creed, and the [term] Theotokos is restored [to liturgical use}. I'll try to address these two matters:

a) the Filioque - this word is an interpolation into the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Symbol of Faith and has never acheived ecumenical consent - to the contrary, the Eastern Churches unanimously refused it. Oddly enough, so did Rome for several centuries (it first appeared in Spain); at least two Popes expressed themselves against it in the clearest possible language. Its appearance, therefore, in some Eastern Catholic editions is "uniatism" at its worst; Khomiakov was not wrong when he called it "fratricidal". To see it printed as part of the Creed or to hear it sung as part of the Creed is painful to those who know its history. So to be rid of it becomes, then, joyful.

b) Theotokos is a canonical term, defined by the Council of Ephesus and reinforced by the Council of Chalcedon and many other "magisterial" pronouncements. Vatican II and John Paul II have laid particular emphasis on this term and its importance; the Eastern Churches (except, of course, the Assyrian Church of the East, which does not receive the Council of Ephesus) have always remained faithful to this term. The term itself is rich, with a long and honorable history. So restoring this term to use among Eastern Catholics is, again, joyful.

Hope that responds to your query.

Fr. Serge

It makes sense to me. Thank you very much for the response and the observations. I have no problem with saying "Theotokas" instead of the Mother of God. It doesn't flow with the music as well. But since they've changed the music, I guess that doesn't matter anymore!

Tim

Administrator,

Let me get this right - you are saying that a call to unconditionally love people is an "attack"? Oh, come on!!!

There is, however, some ambiguity to my post. Words [b]are important[/b]. Music is important. The spiritual insight in Kellie's post is that in standing up vigorously for any truth we should not let bitterness and resentment enter our hearts. This is attested to by the Patristic Fathers. It is something that Christians need to keep in mind.

But you are right that I did not address the points being discussed. One point in particular I disagree with. Why should the Bishops have consulted the people? I do not think this would have been a good thing for them to do. I don't feel slighted that they did not consult me. The Bishops have the spiritual authority to make these decisions as they see fit.

At the RDL this weekend I asked that God bless all on this list.

Back to the topic -

We use a sheet that tells us where to put the ribbons. This weekend (post Transfiguration) I was lost. It would have been nice to have all of the music (troparion, kontakion, etc.) on a separate sheet of paper as we did before the RDL. But we made it through.

Your response is a good example of the tactic you are using. Instead of discussing the questions that have been raised (regarding the quality of the texts, rubrics and music of the Revised Divine Liturgy) you once again change the topic by calling for unconditional love. A call for unconditional love is valid but it is not an appropriate or reasonable response to every question.

Although you do not have enough respect for other posters to answer the questions put to them I will show respect to you and answer yours.

The theological reason is Sensus Fideilum. See Lumen Gentium #12 for starters, though there are many, many references.

The pragmatic reason is that people have a choice where they worship. If they don�t like it they will not stay. That does not mean that one revises worship to make it entertaining (the Mega Evangelical Churches do that and while it brings in people they don�t stay for long because they are not really fed). It does mean that should change be necessary such change should be introduced over great lengths of time so that people are not spiritually hurt by the change. In this case the people have been forced to relearn both the texts and music they had memorized after 40 years. The very way they speak to God has been changed and they had no say. Appeals to obedience to bishops because they have the authority to make these decisions might keep people from complaining but such appeals will not keep them in the Ruthenian Church.

Rusyn31,

Listened to Holy Ghost liturgy again this morning. Can't get used to only hearing the Cantor singing with very few in the congregation singing along. Can't believe what I'm hearing.
Vichnaja pamjat' indeed!

Ungcsertezs

I know what you meant by this. But on another higher level of thinking in the abstract something occurred to me.

Are you sure? I think that Christ might indeed say that unconditional love IS the appropriate and reasonable response to every question in life.

Now, how can I argue with this statement of yours and other's pain? I cannot. Indeed, I sense the pain, the loss, the fear. I really don't know what to say in the face of this statement. It hurts to read your words.

So let us go to the Bishops:

The changes in the music, the words and the liturgy were decisions that the Bishops made. They really do not have to consult people.

This is a difficult change. I don't like dropping of mankind. But what comes first is that I must have a deep respect for the authority of the Bishops and not the authority of my own judgment. Why? The Bishops are the successors of the apostles. Our obedience to them must imitate Christ's obedience to the Father. You cannot not have this. They are the living tradition of the Church. I see it as an opportunity to obey.

There are many, many good things in the RDL. #1) the Psalm translations are very good. Compared to any other Church they are great. Word changes that are good - "Theotokos", "essences," "created" in the creed. There are others. There is a lot more music with ever greater options. It does require work. Besides, I don't understand something - if people leave aren't they going to have to learn new music and words anyway?

I do think I know what you mean by the style of the language. Yeah, I agree with you but I do not agree to the level of a rhetoric that screams, "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!"

I've been a member of the OCA for almost a year now. I get the equivalent of what would be the full Ruthenian recension every Sunday. There is no inclusive language. We use Slavonic. The Liturgy is 90 minutes long with sermon. Nobody is complaining, or has left since I joined the parish.

Why can't the Greek Catholic Church implement the same thing? After all, the OCA was formed from mostly ex Greek Catholics. We're doing great Liturgically! What's the problem!

This is just wrong. Please leave this kind of stuff out.

Here is something that deals with the problem of style in Biblical translations. One can see its application to the debates on language in the RDL, the Roman Rite, and other rites. It is affecting everyone.

Robert Alter in his book, The Five Books of Moses, writes of the "heresy of explanation" which has destroyed any accurate rendering of the original Hebrew into English.

"There are, alas, more pervasive ways than the choice of terms in which nearly all the modern English versions commit the heresy of explanation. The most global of these is the prevalent modern strategy of repackaging biblical syntax for an audience whose reading experience is assumed to be limited to Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times or the Times of London...."

Alter goes on to argue that the style of Hebrew has an essential function in conveying the meaning of the text and that this style rather - than being alienating to modern ears - find echoes in modern English literature. Indeed, he thinks that there was, indeed, an ancient form of Hebrew that was particular to the worship of God and separate from the common, everyday Hebrew used for ordinary discourse and commercial transactions.

Alter writes that the "...rejection of biblical parataxis presupposes a very simplistic notion of what constitutes modern literary English. The implicit model seems to be, as I have suggested, the popular press, as well as perhaps high-school textbooks, bureaucratic directives, and ordinary conversation. But serious writers almost never accept such leveling limitation to a bland norm of popular usage. If one thinks of the great English stylists among twentieth-century novelists - writers like Joyce, Nabokov, Faulkner, and Virginia Woolf - there is not one among them whose use of language, including the deployment of syntax, even vaguely resembles the workaday simplicity and patly consistent orderliness that recent translators of the Bible have posited as the norm of modern English."

I think that this is how I would begin to think about the question you raised.

Rufinus,

You became a member of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. You did not grow up in this Particular Church. You can not say that these changes of rubrics, translation and music are minor changes. These are major issues for those of us who have been members of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church since birth.

It would be same if I were to start attending a Roman parish and started making comments about liturgy in my "adopted" Particular Church. I would have no right to comment on such things.

Ungcsertezs

Ungcsertezs,

I won't address your "assessment" of my person. This is what Fr. Petras has experienced and it is sad.

In addition to my own experience, my comments and observations are based upon the comments and reflections of the elderly in our Church. All were "born into the Church" way before 40 years ago.

One old man in his 70s when I asked him what he thought of the RDL replied, "I don't see much difference from what we were doing before. There's a few words changed here and there but the music is pretty much the same."

An elderly lady who vividly remembers the Church from before the 60's said, "Finally, we have our music back before they Americanized us."

Another elderly man said, "I like it. It feels more Byzantine."

All of these people were born way before me and had an experience of something that my age did not permit me to have. I found reassurance in their words. Perhaps others will as well.
Rufinus

U-C,

You can't accept the support of non-cradles and give them the right to speak when they agree with you and then tell non-cradles who disagree with you they have no right to comment. How long does one have to be a member of a particular Church before they have a right to speak? 10 years? 20 years? Never because they aren't cradles?

Fr. Deacon Lance