www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy One year Anniversary of RDL is approaching...

Mentioning visitors to the liturgy, I had a couple of them comment to me after the Christmas Liturgy (which was the first time they at seen the new books). Although they were confused by the flipping around, they all that they were good books and would allow them follow and participate more once they became accustomed to them. I heard no negative comments.

Hey, I just met a couple of them on Monday morning. They traveled nearly 150 miles for the funeral of a newborn of a family in our parish. (That family is out at the monastary with some regularity.

By the way, the monastery has now switched to Romanian Catholic jurisdiction.

hawk

...Romanian Greek Catholic jurisdiction.

Ung

There�s always a right way and wrong way to present new ideas, and perhaps telling a group of adults you �have� to do it this way by June 29th may have been the wrong approach, but it�s done, stop fighting it. I don�t understand why some priests and churches refuse to use the new books. Who do they think they are? Our new green books are for the most part very good. It gives us choices so that the Liturgy doesn�t get stale and mundane. When your Bishop says to use it, who are we to say no, or ask why? We can spend the next 20 years fighting over why it was done, why so many changes, why the word changes, etc., or we can accept the Bishop�s wishes, move on and enjoy the beautiful liturgy. Life is short, enjoy it.

Presentation was key in the acceptance of the book. If the Cantor and/or priest were positive in their approach, the congregation would follow. Saying it�s no good, what were they thinking, we�re not using it not only goes against the Bishops� wishes, but creates a negative audience. If it was presented in a positive way�..wow, this is great, look at all our options, how nice to have music for everything, etc., I bet there would be far less complaints. In our church, we took a few weeks before actually using the new book, to practice before liturgy. Just a few minutes, just a quick song or two, and reassurance that there is not that much different, do not fear the changes. We picked out the version, whether A, B, C, etc. that sounded most like the melodies we had always sung and went with them. We made bookmarks and put one in each book, to remind people which version will be sung on a usual basis. Our bulletin points out the pages to go to or put a ribbon on, and on days when there are too many page turns, we print out the handout sheet prepared by MCI. It works for us. When there are new people or visitors in church, someone nearby always helps them, keeping them on the right page. Remarks from them are often that it wasn�t so bad and that the book in the Roman Catholic Church is much worse and harder to use. There are those in church that never sing anyway, so why worry that they are not singing now and blame it on the book when that may not be the case. About 7 years ago my husband and I visited a Florida church and when the liturgy started, we started to sing along per our usual custom. It didn�t take long before we noticed very very few people were singing�.and this was 7 years before the new books. The new book is not the problem, people are just using its newness as an excuse. They fear change and are too lazy to learn something new. Another Florida church was the exact opposite�.we sang out loud to our hearts content, practiced and was encouraged by the priest.

I recently visited a Ukrainian Church in Ohio and their book is twice as thick as our green book, and they all sat in the pew. They were too heavy for most of the elderly to hold, so the church had to reprint a portion of it and have stapled paper booklets for them to use. So we are not alone in the new book dilemma.

Most of our ancestors were illiterate, and could not read music, but loved their faith. They learned the music by hearing it. Change would have been hard for them too. But as we Byzantines spread out in the country and moved around for job, military or family reason, we brought our customs with us. Having lived in various states across the country and attended numerous Byzantine churches, I can attest that none of them did the liturgy or hymns the same. I feel our new green book was and is a good attempt to get us unified. At our church, many of us had our own way to sing certain things, having brought them from our old parishes. Now, with the new books and a positive attitude, we have united, sing the same melody and words, and truly enjoy the liturgy. If any participating priest or cantor visits from another church, he will feel right at home. And I think that was one of the goals of the powers that be�.to unify the singing and prayers, so that no matter where you go, it will always be the same. You can fight on who�s right till the cows come home, and will have wasted your life away trying to be right. In the end, God is not going to care what melody you sang, what verses you used, or even if you sang on key. He�s going to look at the fact that you were in church and how you lived your life.

Can you tell I like the new book?

Oh, good grief. Was going to stay out of this thread, but here I go.

Never. It's a poor translation. Restore the word orthodox, unto ages of ages, and mankind...that's the beginning of a good translation.


What??? Seriously??? A liturgy that's been chanted from the beginning of Christianity get stale and mundane, never. Learn the history of the Recension and your church and you won't make silly statements like this.


Eternal life is well, eternal. Better to begin preparing now where you hope to spend eternity. The fuller Recension is even more beautiful than what you have now. IMAGINE having the OPTION to experience that???? With the RDL you can't.


Thankfully our churches are full of stubborn Slavs who know when they smell a rat. The Bishops never thought it would be greeted with such disdain. It's not about being positive, Marilyn. It's about knowing right from wrong, and this translation is wrong.




Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't care about the Roman Catholic Books and how ours compare. That's the problem right now, we have lots of Roman Catholics in our pews who say, well this Liturgy isn't as bad as Vatican II. Well of course not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been more, and a correct translation. We are being told to align ourselves with who we really are, and for anyone who doesn't know out there.....it's the ORTHODOX! Let's start comparing ourselves Liturgically with the Orthodox and see how we measure up! Now there's the yard stick!



Yes, Marilyn you are correct. It's the content of the book that's the problem.



Customs? Liturgy thought of as a custom?? Good grief. A custom is we always drink a shot of Slivovich after basket blessings on Easter with the priest. A custom isn't antidoron, the great entrance or proskomedia. That is the way we celebrate our faith through Divine Liturgy and how the world identifys the Eastern Catholics.


Unless you have paid musicians who chant the Liturgy, this will never materalize, as cantoring is an unpaid position with lots of good folks leading us in prayer who don't read music. This fact will never change. It will never be 100%. And besides, I don't think that was the end goal.


Yes, so why monkey with it at all. Save that money and put it toward evangelization so that more people could experience the fuller recension.

I emplore you to get Fr. Serge Keheler's book on why this Revised Divine Liturgy needs to be recast. It will open your eyes to the deficiencies in the translation. Stop focusing on the music, and focus on what's wrong with what's printed on the pages. Focusing on the music is just more of the smoke and mirrors.

I believe the topic of this discussion was how is your church doing now that we are coming up on the one year anniversary of using our new green books, how is attendance, and how are the people singing, not whether we agree with the printing of the book or its translation. I'm sure that was discussed elsewhere. So in answer to the original question let me rephrase my post, I feel our church is doing fine with the new book, membership has increased and our singing has improved for positive reasons stated earlier.

You have just said everything I think and feel about the RDL. I couldn't agree with you more! I also wanted to bring up the way the bishops have given this ne Liturgy. It is with an iron fist. They dismissn all the concerns about it like you somehow have the problem. Then when they see you will never agree they throw obedience at you. The agenda behind all the changes is very disturbing!

Where do I get this book?

The Romanian bishop is great. He seems to be a bishop for the right reasons. The monks are wonderful. The Romanian bishop is very supportive of the monastery as well. Go for a visit. Check out the blog they have. It is on the website.

Prayers for the family who lost a baby.

There are plenty of examples of parishes with much abbreviated Divine Liturgies were the attendance is stable and the singing is reasonably acceptable. Those are not the sole criteria on which to judge for people can get used to all kinds of things, be they good or be they bad.

The criteria for judging should use the measuring stick of the official books published by Rome for the Ruthenian recension. The criteria for change should be the official changes made by the Orthodox.

Do the rubrics in the books in use match those given in the official text exactly? (We know they do not.)

Are the English texts faithful translations (i.e., as literal and as faithful as possible with corrections made that reflect what people have memorized?). (We know they are not.)

Does the music (from whatever source) serve the text and not the text serve the music? (We know it does not.)

So the task before us is to continually encourage our bishops to do what is right, and to rescind the Revision and instead embrace our official liturgical tradition. This task is a difficult one and may take a lifetime to accomplish. But it worth undertaking and will, in time, be successful.

Authenticity in Liturgy is the goal. It works. Always.

Fabricated Liturgy does not work. Ever.

We're planning on doing so, possibly at the next pilgrimage or other major event. Our tent could really use more use, anyway


Thank you. Even after miscarriages, I can't imagine the pain of this loss . . .

hawk

I have read with interest the one-year evaluations of the 2007 translation of the Divine Liturgy. My observation is that if people detest the translation they will tend to evaluate its reception as disastrous. For me, it would be desirable to have an objective outside observer.

I do see two problems in the evaluation of the Liturgy. Most of the criticism on the Byzantine Forum revolves around the structure and form of the Liturgy, and does not address its theological core. My position has been that with the Liturgy in the vernacular, it is important to restore the presbyteral prayers, particularly the anaphora. This problem is rarely addressed here. The anaphora particularly is an expression of the Paschal mystery of the faith, namely, that through death we find life, as our Lord said, �Whoever will save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake and for the sake of the gospel will find it.� This our Lord sealed by his own death and resurrection. It is what being a Christian is all about, and it is a message that we desperately need today, as we have always needed it. Will simply saying the Anaphora aloud assure that we hear this message? It most certainly opens the opportunity, and this is the theology of the Liturgy. The administrator said �authenticity in the Liturgy.� This is certainly authenticity. Paying attention to rubrics and words is important, but it can distort the Liturgy if we do not keep aware constantly of the greater theological picture. Father Kelleher�s book, for example, addresses rubrics and words, the structure of the Liturgy, but it does not deal with its theology, and I have critiqued his analysis on my web site. I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy.

The second problem is a certain fundamental liturgical literalism. For example, the �Ruthenian Recension� is identified with the 1942 Oriental Congregation edition, done mostly by one man, Fr. Cyril Korolevsky. This would mean that the �Ruthenian recension� did not exist until 1942, which is absurd. I do not mean that Fr. Korolevsky�s edition did not reflect authentic traditions of the Ruthenian church or that it was not a great work of liturgical scholarship, but only that it cannot be �identified� with the �Ruthenian recension.� This identification comes from a liturgical literalism, which some have proudly admitted, but fundamental literalism can cause much mischief. So the Administrator says, �do the rubrics in the books in use match those given in the official text exactly?� Well, actual practice does not now nor has it ever matched the text exactly, and at times the �official texts� are a bit fuzzy and have been filled in by custom (not necessarily tradition). For example, whether the presbyteral prayers are said aloud or not. Fr. Korolevsky�s edition was in Church Slavonic, but our Liturgy is now in English, and this makes a huge difference in our understanding. Some modifications can be made to his work, and the Liturgy will remain �authentic Ruthenian recension.� I observe that the 2007 translation has actually resulted in many parishes coming closer to an authentic Byzantine tradition, which is desirable, and also - and perhaps more importantly - to an authentic Christian worship.

Hello Ung,

I had a chance to talk to my aunt about her church. She told me that they usually get 100 members attend on Sunday on a regular basis, but only five or six actually are seen holding the new hymn books. It is heavy and difficult to page back and forth for every hymn. People are relying on the cantor minister for direction on melody. Many complaints about the revised melodies so much that they have gone back to singing old versions(?). I guess this means the type of singing in pre-RDL days. Their pastor still uses old books now and then. Most people she has talked to about the RDL dislike it with a passion. Singing has decreased for awhile when they first implemented it and tried to sing the new hymns. Later, they abandoned it and participation has picked up. In the past, the old hymn books would be taken by members. No thefts have occured with new RDL books. No one wants them. So far, every book that has been put out in pews has remained there. No one calls out hymn number anymore; nor does anyone change the page numbers or hymn numbers on the boards. When visiting priests who are officials of the church show up, they put out the books and make every effort to make it look like they are up on things. When dignitaries leave, they go back to what works. My aunt is frustrated.

Of course, this is hearsay. But i have no reason to doubt my aunt. She is very busy in her church community. She likes to see it continuebut is worried thta the new books have become another sore issue since the scandals. RIght now, they don't want anything more from their church thta is new. They just want to survive without having things thrown at them - new hoops to jump threw. They are afraid of any newer books that might be published.

They are still getting over the inclusive language. Personally, this makes me wonder. There seems to be two groups of women in this church; those who have feminist agendas and are pushing such changes to satisfy their involvement and thos women who are mothers or single who are proud of their femininity but don't appreciate their male dominated church patronizing them with word tweaking. There are some versions of hymns that are never taken because of the obvious sexism --- the 'Beatitudes' which omit "Sons" of God (the only word in the Bible and all ancient manuscripts). To date, my aunt tells me that this is never taken even though it was taken often in the pre-RDL days. The one cantor who is openly against this version of the Beatitudes is their only female cantor!

Ok then...

Several women in the community who are married to soldiers have noticed that their church changed their worship from praying for civil authorities and armed forces to civil authorities and those in the government (which they perceive to be a purposeful redundancy since government workers are civil workers. The military is left out and they believe that the church which is feminist is also anti-military (and liberal). My aunt tells me that these women (about five) refuse to pick up the RDL book. They pointed out that Byzantine have always prayed for their military or armed forces until now.

I find this difficult to imagine, but churches in the past have mandated crummy forms of new worship on their members. What is the purpose of doing this if it results in such animosity?

Ed

It's amazing what people perceive they hear... The actual petition reads:


But to the topic...

Parishes in the West had already been using the a form of the RDL for some time. In the official version, the notable changes are textual. Re the music, in our particular parish, the cantors (now six in number) are leading the congregational singing quite well. The faithful are using the pew books for the changeable parts. In our parish the "controversy" is a non-event. There has been no exodus.

Through marriages and births, there is a net increase of faithful. Non-cradle Byzantine Catholics moderately outnumber cradle Byzantine Catholics. In fact we have been discussing the need to expand the temple. We are at full capacity for the 10 AM Divine Liturgy, about 150. There are also a 5PM Vesperal Liturgy Sat evening (25-30 faithful) and a additional 8 AM Divine Liturgy Sunday (60-70 faithful).

?

This seems unusual, even unique. There is, I concede, no reason not to pray for those who serve the county, be it County Kerry in Ireland or Spotsylvania County in Virginia. But I've not encountered such a usage previously.

Fr. Serge

Thank you for the exact quote. It certainly does reflect a redundancy - those "in the service of our country" (a more general term like "Christians of the true faith") is definitely the more specific "armed forces" which focuses on the military. Did you overlook this? Both terms, "Christians of the true faith" and "in the service of our country", seem to reflect the political bent of the publishers of your church. The former phrase/translation reflects a phobia of anything "Orthodox"; the latter, reflects a disdain for the miliary - OUR military. what is so wrong with using "Orthodox" and "armed forces"? your church is apt to return to Greek terms for the mother of God, but not here? Why? It says a lot when one pruposely mistranslate, omit terms, and change biblical texts ("children" of God).


Where did I mention an "exodus"? I noted from her comments that the RDL books which your church mandated has proven to be unuseful, if not a hindrance. It is disliked and remains in pew shelves un-used. Would you consider it a success if only 5% of one's church community actually used the hymn book? Maybe my aunt's community is one of hte few that actually looks closely at what words are being translated and yours really don't care? I can't explain why one community sees it, but another could care less. Maybe the second reaction is the one hoped for? I don't belong to my aunt's church. You are a deacon and you cannot speak ill will of your church I would guess.
Ed