www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy New Edition of the Divine Liturgy

Fr. Deacon Lance, it seems quite judgemental and narrow to suggest, with the great variation of particular liturgical development between the Ruthenian rescension and the Melkites, that one cannot disagree with the RDL but like aspects of the Melkite liturgy, and furthermore to do so is "hypocritical".

I could illustrate this with numerous examples, but will only take one for the interest of time. I greatly appreciate the respect for pastoral sensitivity by allowing the priest to take all of the Antiphon verses or the Typika as he desires based on the particular parish liturgical circumstances in the proposed Melkite text (which is not final); the "sole text" of the RDL English text as promulgated does not allow the same.

Fr. Deacon Randy,

"It's not perfect (nothing ever is), but it is admirable, and those who will use it are to be envied." Fr. Serge

"It's wonderful! mankind, unto ages of ages, and Master! We should scrap ours, and use theirs. Anybody with me on that??????" Stephanie

Illustrate all you like, the bottom line is the very same people ripping the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy are praising the Revised Melkite Liturgy when the two share many features except for horitzontal inclusive language including most notably:

Litany of Catechumens suppressed unless catechumens at Liturgy

Angel of Peace petitions suppressed after Great Entrance

Anaphora aloud mandated

So again I say those praising this revision either didn't read it completely because they should have the same criticisms of it or they are being very hypocritical in criticizing the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy and praising the Revised Melkite Liturgy. Why? Because they translate the way they like they will tolerate even bigger rubrical changes and options?

As to the point you illustrate, how often has it been said her the option to take less means less will be taken? What is preferable mandate all three Antiphons be taken but reduced to one verse or make it an option to take only one completely? You end up with the same amount of material either being sung either way.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I disagree based on my experiences in Melkite parishes. The clergy I know will be quite pleased to have the ability to take the fuller text they deem appropriate for the parish circumstances.


I would say they are quite dissimilar in more ways.

Regarding your rancor at individual posters, at least there is a forum where such things can be voiced - unlike the Melkite liturgy there was little input asked for or taken in the preparation of the RDL.

You may disagree, but there are those who are not satisfied with the product of the RDL as a liturgy of the Ruthenian Rescension. As such, accusations of hypocrisy, rancor, whatever else you feel the need to vent, do not proffer anything other than anger.

Also we do not know that this will be final. These two liturgical revisions differ far more in approach and content than they are similar, I would maintain.
Fr. Deacon Randolph

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

We will have to disagree. They look vey similar to me.

As for rancor I have none towards Fr. Serge or Stephanie. Why is claiming a position hypocritical rancorous? I just don't think you can criticize the Revised Ruthenian Liturgy and then turn around and praise the Revised Melkite Liturgy when both make many of the same changes.

I have stated my sympathy for for those who don't like the new translation or rubrics and publicly stated I hope they gain their wish to use the 65 book again. What I do reject are claims that our clergy are infected with the modernist agendas of novus ordo-ization or radical feminism.

And for all the ado about invovling the laity in the revision of the Liturgy I find it telling the end products share many features.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

There is a difference between calling a specific crticism "hypocritical" and asserting that the critics "are being hypocritical". By way of amusement, to write that "Jones uttered a feline snarl" does not give Jones four paws and a tail, while "Jones is quite catty" might at least seem to!

To go from the amusing to the erudite, I hope that I grasped both revisions as a Gestalt in each case. Hence my reaction. I prefer not to expand at the moment; when time permits I hope to write a more detailed analysis of the Eparchy of Newton's text. #

Meanwhile, though, I would lay high odds that simply putting the two versions side-by-side would show substantial differences, so that it is not simply a matter of seeing the good Swiss cheese in one, and nothing but the holes in the other!

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance --



Not so fast. The use of the word OPTIONAL makes a HUGE difference to those of us who love the full Ruthenian Recension, better known as the Red Book. It would have made things a little better.



Again, not so fast. Our dear Fr. Tom Loya stated in a post over the Summer that this Liturgy was a last attempt by those raised in the sixties to leave their mark on the Liturgy. Call it what you want, but the inclusive language makes it sound like a flower child Liturgy to me.

Again, just my two cents......

Stephanie

P.S. I am honored to be in the same boat as Fr. Serge; at least I know I'll be praying the full Recension.

Those who wish to be in the same boat with me are always welcome to visit our parish in Dublin. We abbreviate the Divine Liturgy once a year.

Fr. Serge

lol

Fr. Serge,

My intention was to state that I believe the criticism is hypocritical as I do not consider either you or Stephanie hypocrites. My apologies if there was any confusion.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Stephanie

The following are mandated not optional just as in the RDL:

Litany of Catechumens suppressed unless catechumens at Liturgy

Angel of Peace petitions suppressed after Great Entrance

Anaphora aloud

Fr. Deacon Lance

Have there been criticisms of the RDL for not taking this litany if Catechumens are not present?

Yes.

I am not so sure - I remember one friendly exchange with the Admin where I recommended it be used in its fullness when there were catechumens present, and he preferred it used always. I don't think it ever came up as a significant criticism of the RDL since it was rarely used before. In the 1988 UGCC Liturgikon the full litany of the cathecumens is optional but can be taken anytime, but rarely is when no catechumens are present except in select parishes.

Diak remembers correctly.

I recommend that priests pray the Litany for the Catechumens because it is important to pray for the catechumens, be they present or not. I know of a priest who didn't take it for a long time because he didn't have any catechumens. Then he thought he might begin to pray it in hopes of catechumens and started praying it. Lo and behold! At the end of the very first Divine Liturgy he had someone come up to him and tell him that they wished to convert to Byzantine Catholicism. [There are 7 petitions plus the doxology, and only 2 of them are directed to the catechumens. The other 5 and the doxology are prayers of the faithful for the catechumens.]

English language Liturgicons need to be faithful and exacting translations from the original language. This includes both text and rubrics. Allowable deviations from the normative, official Liturgy should be documented in a separate instruction. For the Ruthenian Church the bishops should promulgate all the official Slavonic books as normative, and then seek to produce exacting translations (with the only accommodations being pastoral ones for what has been accepted and memorized by the people). As I have indicated, restoration begins with promulgation of the official books of the Ruthenian recension, plus a directive as to what is the �lowest� allowable form. Then, with example, education and encouragement, one raises the standard gently over a generation or so until the full Liturgy is celebrated everywhere. There was certainly no need for the crisis in the Ruthenian Church that the bishops have created. The faithful deserve more respect then they have been given.

As to the Melkite text being circulated for comment, I make the same recommendations. I have not had the chance to spend any time with it or to compare it with previous editions. I am glad, however, that they are seeking input and are open to critical analysis.

I looked over it briefly.

I see very little new, it reads almost exactly as the DL is prayed in my parish. That's only from the people's point of view however; I admit utter ignorance at what happens behind the iconostasis.

The only differences I saw from my look-through are:

- "our King and our God" is removed from the little entrance hymn. Since "our King and our God" is commonly used in the Arabic, I'd imagine that many parishes may keep this in.

- "one in substance" is removed (finally) formally from the books.

- the optional litanies in appendix 6

- " Ἄξιόν ἐστιν" has a different translation.

- "Receive me today O Son of God as a communicant in your mystical supper" has a different translation. I wonder if that means that we'll get new music, or if we'll keep the current modern-music melody that we use. (I wouldn't mind hearing the new translation chanted along with the Arabic to the reading-type melody that is commonly used in the Middle East).

My only suggestion for the final printed version would be to make the people's parts bolded, and possibly in a larger font.