www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I like the changes to the Divine Liturgy, anybody else agree?

Stephanie,

Please wake up! It was a nice dream, wasn't it! There are plenty of Orthodox churches with pews! Some don't even have the ripidia (liturgical fans) behind the Altar!

You're not alone in this mission!

We have ripidia behind the altar in our Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholic Church.

Dear Dr. John --

I find, even with my own kids, that experience is the best teacher. Wouldn't you agree? That's how I became interested in learning more about our beloved Byzantine liturgical practices, by attending an Orthodox church.

You'll get more people on-board by showing them, than by telling them.



My parish celebrated the full recension, complete with all the Litanies, and the entrances done correctly, and no one was scarred. We even sang with fervor the word mankind, and it didn't cause an upheaval.



Yes! The prayers are the cake, the practices are the icing on the cake. Somehow, adding those finishing touches to our beloved Divine Liturgy makes it that much more holy. It allows you to experience the Divine Liturgy on a different level. I hope you'll get to experience it someday so that you may become a proponent of our liturgical practices from first hand experience. It truly is something to experience!

P.S. If you want to know about what shoddy liturgical practices can do to a person's faith, just PM Etnick -- he'll share a little story that relates to his post.

Dear Cantor JFK,

I will only respond by saying that this person was not a layman.

Surely you must know by now that the majority of the BCC is not pleased with the changes. Friends of mine who are still in the BCC continue to grieve.

Dear Recluse,

Indeed - and quite a few are still unhappy about the elimination of daily "Lenten Masses" in favor of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and grade-school First Communions in favor of infant Communion. At Uniontown I heard a middle-aged priest lamenting the loss of Sacred Heart devotions and Supplicatia/Benediction, and blaming the seminary and Liturgy Commission for "taking away our holy traditions". Others complain about the mandating of the Third Antiphon - and say that the Beatitudes are "in the wrong place" in the new book, and are supposed to be sung at Communion "like we always have"! I think you would need a better survey to find out how many people are displeased about what, rather than assuming that all complaints are in the direction you'd agree with.

I have heard MANY complaints over the past year - and acceding to most of them would have taken us further AWAY from the restoration that Stephanie is calling for, rather than toward it.

While I think a restoration could take place at a slightly faster pace than our moderator has recommended - he suggested that added verses at the prokeimenon was enough of a change for one year, as I recall - and the bishops have certainly made a number of positive changes in the past decade - I agree with Dr. John: education of the laity in our liturgy is key.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I assure you, my friend is as "Orthodox" as they come.

Your example of Eastern Catholic priests who are upset about the elimination of Latinizations is something else entirely.

I'm fairly certain that if a legitimate poll were taken, the RDL would not fare so well. I know that you are pleased with it--and I expect that others are also pleased. But I do not think it is the majority--that is only my opinion, of course.

But what would be the purpose of such a poll? This is a mandate for the Ruthenian Catholics. They must make the best of it.

In Christ,
R

Dear Recluse,

Thank you for clarifying. You had said that someone "must know" that "the majority of the BCC" are not pleased with the new book. Now you say that you "think" it is a majority (but admit that it may not be) - hardly something that everyone "must know". And my point is that quite a few of the people who are unhappy would be even MORE unhappy if the bishops pushed for a fuller restoration such as Stephanie described - just as they have been unhappy (and some have left) due to previous changes which brought us closer to Orthodox praxis.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. You seem quite sure of what I am or am not pleased with! To the extent I've engaged in debating here, it's been in response to statements and claims made here that were simply untrue - and since some of the changes that have been made ARE improvements, I'm not willing to constantly display my "more Orthodox than thou" credentials by listing my own opinions. I've stated my disagreements with the new books already, but I am glad to see the bishops attempting to make some restorations (against quite a bit of backlash from the majority of parishes who do NOT celebrate longer liturgies) and am always willing to support such efforts. Such support here has been conspicuously lacking in the past, in favor of "juicier" threads laced with complaint and sarcasm.

I think the only "thing" we need to be doing is to stay true to our faith -- in prayer and practice. The Byzantine Church ended up in trouble when they were not allowed to be Byzantine. It's hurt our church immensely -- because we have two camps now. Those who were raised with Latinizations (which really don't even exist in the Latin church now) and love them; and those who understand our faith and want it restored to its original beauty.

I think the Bishops got into trouble because the RDL is a mandate that doesn't take into account the parishes that were doing more than is currently published. I could live with the music, minus the silly inclusive language, to have the Red Book back. The Red Book parishes were never treated with pastoral sensitivity. We were the model -- and now we're at the bottom of the heap.

Thanks.

Correct. It is only my opinion based on those I have come into contact with.
And this, I suppose is your opinion.
I do not intend to offend you. Please forgive me.
If you are saying that this is what you have gleaned from my posts, I again humbly ask your forgiveness.
Yes. And I commend you for that.

Have a blessed day

R

Dear Recluse,

No offense intended, and none taken!

Stephanie said:


I agree completely - with the addition that the bishops (in my opinion) should have used a more open process, and did not follow through as well as they might have on catechesis.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Unfortunately, I think Stephanie paints a starkly black and white picture. Either you (1) follow the "Red Book" in a very literal way or (2), you're a "latinizer." Life, nor the Byzantine tradition, is not so starkly black and white, as much as we would want it to be. One could argue, and it has been argued, that to put the Liturgy into English is to "latinize," for, after all, English is totally and completely a language of Western Europe, and simply to use the language is to introduce some Western concepts. Comparatively speaking, the Russian and Greek cultures are more "western" than the Syrian and Coptic cultures. Since 1962, our church has systematically eliminated clear latinizations from the Liturgy - though some remain, such as pre-cut Communion particles, though it is not in the new books. The new translation has restored the zeon and eliminated the "filioque." The new translation has also done something which the "red book" did not do - it restored the priest's office - his prayers said for the hearing of the people. This
issue is consistently ignored, and whether you agree with the practice or not - it is a substantive issue, amd it has nothing to do with "minimalization." Nor does it have anything to do with "latinization," as it was proposed in the East seriously long before it was proposed in the West. And, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, we do live in the Western world, and we cannot help but be influenced by Western ideas - but we can accept praying aloud and reject facing the people, and so be faithful to our tradition. Stephanie also argues for the "full Ruthenian recension," which is, of course, only a creature of the Catholic Church. You will not find the "full Ruthenian recension" in Orthodoxy. I bring this up, becuase what I think she is really saying is that we must be completely conformed to Orthodoxy, and the "full Ruthenian recension" is fully conformed to Orthodoxy. This is true - so far! - on the level of written texts, if one ignores Greek and Slav variations, though not always in pastoral practice. But if we are to argue for the "full Ruthenian recension," the reason for this should be made clear, and perhaps it might be better to say the full "Byzantine," or "Orthodox" or "traditional" or the "textus receptus," or some such. I also think Jeff is right when he says there is more objection from the more Latinizing end. Many complain that we are becomnig too "Orthodox." It may not even matter who is "right" and who is "wrong," the mere fact of division may destroy our church. Liturgical change hurts, and so we are tempted to hurt back, rather than seek some kind of common ground. I am optimistic, however, that we will come through this crisis stronger.

Father David,

I visited a Byzantine parish in my area a while back. They USED the "Red Book". It was the identical liturgy word for word, trojca held three times, lock stock and barrel, as my OCA parish uses every Sunday.
They even have a CURTAIN behind the iconostas!

The parishioners there loved it,and are now dealing with the RDL. I've been told that some have left, don't like the new music, etc,etc. They were, in my opinion, a parish to be emulated. People from heavily Latinized parishes would occasionally visit and think they were in an Orthodox church.

Essentially the "Red Book" is what's currently in use in the OCA. It works for us. Why can't it work for the Byzantine Catholic church?

Dear Fr. David,

Thank you for your reply. What I had hoped to express in my earlier post(s) was that this RDL has created two camps -- and by sitting on the fence, no one is pleased with this translation. Maybe the commonality we all have is that we dislike what our Hierarchs have done to our beloved Divine Liturgy. Maybe that's our starting point for putting together a translation that represents who the Byzantine Church truly is -- free from Latinizations; free to experience all of the Orthodox practices we are entitled to as Byzantine Catholics; free to even say the word orthodox in our Divine Liturgy.

What many families in my age group -- those under 50 had hoped for was a translation that gave the parishes that were behind liturgically the opportunity to experience a fuller liturgy; while allowing those parishes celebrating the Red Book to continue to do so. Instead, in the name of "progress" those Red Book parishes lost the most.

Specifically, what many of us hoped for was a liturgy that allowed:

--- Three verses of the antiphons (realizing this is an abridgment of what a full recension would have, but that we were headed in that direction)

--- Restoration of the litanies, specifically those between the verses of the first and second antiphons, and before the third antiphon.

--- A liturgical translation that cleaned-up the inaccurate text to include the word orthodox, and perhaps unto ages of ages

--- A liturgical translation that didn't fall to politically correct agendas

--- The restoration of Vespers on Saturday, not the current "Vespergy"

--- The restoration of Matins & Hours

--- The restoration of antidoron


Apparently, some accommodations were to be made through the issuance of a supplement for those parishes that did follow the Red Book, however our Bishop, has forbidden its use in our Eparchy. While the Bishop had the opportunity to be pastorally sensitive, he chose not to. Now, I've watched at least four families with kids, leave for other jurisdictions and the OCA. Those are exactly the people we hoped to engage with this RDL. Now, who will be responsible for their souls?

You are right in your assessment that this is a different time, in that we are influenced by western ideas -- but how has the OCA managed to grow their church, with what is often referred to as archaic language in their Divine Liturgy? I kid you not, at a local OCA parish the church is full each Sunday for a two hour Divine Liturgy. The church is busting at the seams with younger families.

We are different than our parents and grandparents, because we're educated and we're better equipped to know what is right and what is wrong. At one point in time our grandparents, priests and hierarchs were willing to Latinize us out of existence to fit into the ideal American Catholic Church. Today we know better. And this forum proves that fact. Even Rome wants us to prove that Byzantines can be both Catholic and Orthodox. That's where this RDL falls short.

S'Nami Boh!

Stephanie

?? The prayers were present - and I do not recall any absolute prohibition that they could not be taken aloud (some were taking parts of the "Parma" version aloud previously).

The history of silent and audible anaphora has been rehashed many times here, and no new compelling arguments from the historic corpus of development of the practice have been made. Even attempted civil mandates to enforce the audible anaphora have not prevailed - and that at a much, much earlier time in the Church and before any such false identifier as "latinization" could be made on the practice of the silent anaphora. I am not sure separating the "Priest's Office" as a dissectional component from the entirety of the Liturgy is really a good idea, as if it is somehow a separate entity. The "Priest's Office" becomes a somewhat subjective thing in and of itself - and if we are speaking here of presbyteral prayers neither Taft nor Schmemann suggested in discussions of reform that all of the presbyteral prayers should be taken aloud.

Stephanie,

What your saying is true, but the problem here is the bishops who promulgated the RDL are not much younger than the same people who will just tolerate the new translation. (The 65 plus crowd that is the majority of the metropolia). They need a church to be buried from. Who is really complaining on the parish level? How many of the majority even read this forum? The bishops banked on this, and they won.

If the Archdiocese was as big as a comparable Latin Archdiocese, with many younger families you can bet they wouldn't have tampered with success. IE,(Don't bite the hand that feeds you). I really would like to know why a church as little as the BCC felt the need to destroy what is already a microcosm of the whole Catholic picture in the USA.

Do the hierarchs think that this will help Orthodox-Catholic relations, when this single translation is the furthest away from any other Eastern Catholic or Orthodox translation? Or don't they care?

Your point about a local OCA church bursting at the seams is well taken. I know the parish you are referring to, and there were alot of crying babies the last time I was there. Annoying during the liturgy sure, but guess what, They are the future of the parish!

I spent half of my life in the BCC, and as everybody here knows I recently became Orthodox. I will live out the rest of my life in a church that I am confident will not give in to change for the sake of change, and hopefully will not give in to any current social agenda.

My prayers are with the concerned faithful who remain in the BCC,and my family and friends who are struggling with what to do next.

Christos Posredi Nas!
Etnick