The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
ElijahHarvest, Nickel78, Trebnyk1947, John Francis R, Keinn
6,150 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,082 guests, and 72 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
U
Member
Member
U Offline
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Originally Posted by Stephanie Kotyuh
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your post, of which I agree heartily. I think what I miss most of our beloved Ruthenian Recension is the rhythm of prayer we were able to slip into. After six months, I am not able to find that rhythm with this Revised, made-up,chopped-up Liturgy. There are so many flat parts to the Liturgy,whether it be wording or music that no amount of practice will fix. It's just a bad translation.

Stephanie,

You mean your parish didn't sing the new MCI para-litugical Theophany Hymn? I guess it must be Hellenic usage!

http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/TheophanyDivineLiturgy.pdf

Ung

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Luckily, I was late for church on Sunday. I'm not usually, but I guess the Lord didn't want to set my hair on fire that morning. Though, there would have been water to put the fire out I suppose. : )

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Are you serious? This is awful. How about the old...At your Baptism in the Jordan... Hey it works great for the Melkites!

Stephanie I have come to love your comments on the RDL. You seem to say everything I think!
Annie

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
They were Ruthenian and now they are Romanian Catholic. They are under Bishop John Michael in Ohio. They are in Washington.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760
Likes: 29
John
Member
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760
Likes: 29
I thank Father David for his post. I will first note that while I continue to disagree with him on many issues regarding the Revised Divine Liturgy (RDL) I acknowledge and respect his love for the Lord and dedication to His Church.

Originally Posted by Father David
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 can sort of agree with Father David on this. Those who support the idea of reform and agree with the style guide of politically-correct gender neutral language will tend to evaluate the Revised Divine Liturgy favorably. While it has not been received well in the vast majority of parishes (Father David himself used the term �crisis� just a few months back in speaking of the state of our Church regarding the RDL) whether it is received well or not is not the sole criteria for evaluation. We know that many in our Church were very happy with Stations of the Cross and other such latinizations. That they were received well does not mean they were acceptable. The main criteria for evaluation of the RDL should be authenticity and faithfulness to the liturgical tradition we share with others.

Originally Posted by Father David
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. � 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.
This issue has actually been discussed at great length.

First, the anaphora is most certainly the core of the Liturgy. Everyone should be familiar with it, know it and understand it. All are agreed on that point and this has never been an issue.

The issue is whether the praying of the Anaphora at the Divine Liturgy is the appropriate vehicle for the education (by hearing) of the faithful. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has commented in a number of places and noted that the experiment in the Latin Church (that is now being imitated in our Church) is not working. In his book, �The Spirit of the Liturgy� he makes clear that �in no sense does the whole Canon have to be said out loud� and speaks about how the German Liturgists say that this custom of praying the Anaphora out loud in the Latin Church has lead to a �crisis�. He concludes about how �silence might be best� and how the development of the quiet Anaphora was no accident. Given that the Latins note such problem with the custom we are now imitating it should be expected that the same problems will arise in our Church. That is all the more reason for liberty, the liberty of the individual priest to pray these prayers quietly or aloud as he desires. Surely the Holy Spirit can be trusted to lead.

Elsewhere, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks about how reorienting the Liturgy to be about the education of man only impedes the making present of his nearness and does not foster the faith because God is no longer the only reason for the celebration.

Quote
�We Experienced That There God Dwells With Men�, by Cardinal Ratzinger (1999)

�What persuaded the envoys of the Russian Prince that the faith celebrated in the Orthodox liturgy was true was not a type of missionary argumentation whose elements appeared more enlightening to listeners than those of other religions. Rather, what struck them was the mystery as such, the mystery which, precisely by going beyond all discussion, caused the power of the truth to shine forth to the reason. Put in a different way, the Byzantine liturgy was not a way of teaching doctrine and was not intended to be. It was not a display of the Christian faith in a way acceptable or attractive to onlookers. What impressed onlookers about the liturgy was precisely its utter lack of an ulterior purpose, the fact that it was celebrated for God and not for spectators, that its sole intent was to be before God and for God "euarestos euprosdektos" (Romans 12:1; 15:16): pleasing and acceptable to God, as the sacrifice of Abel had been pleasing to God. Precisely this "disinterest" of standing before God and of looking toward Him was what caused a divine light to descend on what was happening and caused that divine light to be perceptible even to onlookers. We have, in this way, already reached a first important conclusion regarding the liturgy. To speak, as has been common since the 1950s, of a "missionary liturgy" is at the very least an ambiguous and problematic way of speaking. In many circles of liturgists, this has led, in a truly excessive way, to making the instructive element in the liturgy, the effort to make it understandable even for outsiders, the primary criterion of the liturgical form. The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach. In this view, the liturgy is an instrument for the construction of a community, a method of "socialization" among Christians. Where this is so, perhaps God is still spoken of, but God in reality has no role; it is a matter only of meeting people and their needs halfway and of making them contented. But precisely this approach ensures that no faith is fostered, for the faith has to do with God, and only where His nearness is made present, only where human aims are set aside in favor of the reverential respect due to Him, only there is born that credibility which prepares the way for faith.� (Eutopia Magazine, Catholic University of America, Vol. 3 No. 4: May/June 1999)
I again recommend Father Keleher�s excellent book . The shape of the Liturgy is intricately tied to the ability of the Liturgy to make present God�s nearness because by �setting aside all earthly cares� (including purposeful education through the transmission of information) can we participate in the Divine Light. Paying attention to the shape of the Liturgy IS paying attention to the theology of the Liturgy. People are not formed by hearing the words of the Anaphora pronounced out loud by the priest. They are formed by participating in the Divine Light being made present by the praying of the prayers.

Originally Posted by Father David
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.
If Father David means to accuse me of liturgical fundamentalism I stand in good company. Our own bishops in Europe, together with Patriarch Cardinal Husar and the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church have made clear that the 1942 standard is normative for their Churches and directed all to be familiar with it and to follow it. Does Father David consider Patriarch Husar a liturgical fundamentalist? How about Bishop Milan Shashik? I hope not. But I most certainly do stand with them in keeping the standard, and will again state that should changes be admitted that all work together to accomplish them. I also stand with our Orthodox brethren who hold the Ruthenian, Russian and Greek standards � all of which very close in structure if you compare them to the Pittsburgh RDL. No, it seems clear that Father David�s ideas � which are similar to those in the Latin Church that were popular in some circles after Vatican II � are the ones outside the mainstream. They are, in fact, being rejected by the Latin Church.

Originally Posted by Father David
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).
When actual parish practice does not rise to the standard one does not lower the standard, unless the standard has been shown to be inauthentic and in need of reform. Should one suspect that the standard is in need of reform then one should work with all who hold that standard in common to accomplish change.

Originally Posted by Father David
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.
Father David�s saying that the 2007 Revision (it is not a translation but a revision) has resulted in many parishes coming closer to an authentic Byzantine tradition is misleading. The Revised Divine Liturgy contains no elements that are more authentic to the authentic Byzantine (Ruthenian) liturgical tradition than does the 1942 Church Slavonic edition or the 1964 English translation. It was not necessary to modify the 1942/1964 standard to raise the level of celebration in our parishes. Had the bishops raised the level through example, education and encouragement there would have been no crisis and over an appropriate period of time the standard could have been raised to very close to the 1942 standard without hurting so many of the faithful and clergy.

In his last words Father David seems to be suggesting that the 1942 Ruthenian recension is inauthentic Christian worship. I hope that is just a clumsy choice of words because the 1942 Ruthenian recension is shared by millions of others, and is very close to that of the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. I really hope that Father David is not suggesting that the Divine Liturgy as celebrated in those Churches is inauthentic!

It is a new day in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church. We have had one bishop retire, another soon moves to take his place, and a third one will soon be consecrated. I pray that the new Council of Hierarchs will, as their first act, rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy, declare the official 1942 books as normative for our Church, restore the 1964 translation to common usage, and then direct the preparation of an update to the 1964 translation (one that respects what has been memorized and corrects only what is absolutely necessary). Then, in the future, we can work together with our brethren in the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) to eventually prepare a common translation.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33
P
Member
Member
P Offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33
Hello from Florida everyone... I just read through all four pages so far of this topic, and feel compelled to add a few comments...
Marilyn likes the new book -- and Stephanie says why "monkey with " the liturgy... what exactly are our alternatives?
As a Christian, practicing my religion as a Byzantine Catholic, originally from Pittsburgh and now under the jurisdiction of the Passaic Eparchy, and as a cantor ( for about 45 of my 60 years so far) -- and, as a member of All Saints Parish, in Ft. Myers -- I have been learning the RDL along with everyone else in our parish. Liturgy ( and cantoring ) is "work", as someone else mentioned. We are not Orthodox, here in Florida; we are a mixture of Pittsburgh, Parma, and Passaic Byzantine Catholics, and we are "working" at our lturgical celebrations. We are not necessarily "missal thumpers."
I do not think that hiring and/or paying singers is the answer to our present confusion. I do believe that authentic Liturgy -- work of the people -- is about praying.
Maybe the "illiterates of yore" had a little more faith than we do. I don't think they looked at liturgical activities as entertainment -- it was their education and instruction in the scripture and our faith. I consider myself fortunate -- I grew up in a Byzantine Grade School, in a Byzantine church with a great Iconostas screen. Every Holy Day, Fr. Method Royko, O.S.B., my pastor then, preached to us about the Holy Day as it was depicted on the Icon screen or the tetropod -- That's what I remember most about those days, not whether or not the cantor was singing on key. I believe that is part of the Theology of the Liturgy.
So, what should I do now?
IF, as a cantor, I try to follow the direction of my pastor and the hierarchs and sing the Revised Liturgy, then I am branded a "revisionist." IF I do not sing it, what is there to take its place? Do I dig out our old pew books, or borrow from the Greek Orthodox church up the street from me, or ask ther local band from the big Baptist Church up the way to come sing with me?
Seems to me we have spent a lot of time, like Martha in the gospel, worrying about the procedures, and rubrics, complaining about the lack of help -- instead of choosing the "better part" -- listening to the Word. Let us pray to the Lord -- Lord, have mercy!

Andy Kovaly

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
U
Member
Member
U Offline
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373

We're not allowed to sing the traditional Ruthenian para-liturgigal hymns because they say they are a Latinization. So instead, we are to sing newly-created hymns using RC music? Am I missing something here?

Oh come all ye Herald Angels to the Jordan on this Holy Night! (Hey, that's a new hymn we can sing! whistle)

Give me a break!

U-C


http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/TheophanyDivineLiturgy.pdf

Ung [/quote]

Last edited by Ung-Certez; 01/12/08 11:01 PM.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 114
P
Member
Member
P Offline
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by EdHash
Dear Deacon John,

It is obvious that a special and more specific intention for the *armed forces* was not desired. Why not government, those who serve the country, AND the armed forces? The anti-military position is even taken by your church leaders.
Originally Posted by EdHash
Still, your perception doesn't explain why your church got rid of the special intention for the *armed forces*. I presented my theory above.

Ed, who knows, you may be right, they may have been quietly "dissing" the armed forces . . . but given the other changes of wording, it's more likely they wanted to ensure the rest of the people who are willing to put themselves in harms way for us are included as well. Not all of them wear a uniform.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw many others in service to our country who deserve our prayers and God's blessings as much as those who wore a military uniform. Having spent the last 20 years "in the service of our country," (USAF), I'm not offended by this change; I'm proud that my church recognizes the rest.

Dave

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
Member
Member
E Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by pilgrimcantor
Seems to me we have spent a lot of time, like Martha in the gospel, worrying about the procedures, and rubrics, complaining about the lack of help -- instead of choosing the "better part" -- listening to the Word. Let us pray to the Lord -- Lord, have mercy!

From what I understand, your church was full of Marthaites ("We have to do it THIS way do be considered real Catholics") when it came to Latinization, but Marianists ("let's listen and obey") when it came to restoration. Youns seem to be fearful of who you really are.

My aunt says that in the past your bishops were the ones responsible for providing each community with a cantor who was educated and well trained. My Baptist neighbor is a music minister in her church and gets paid at least $30,000/year for her ministerial leadership. They have darn good music and full participation. Their worship on Sundays lasts at least 3 hours! Your church only makes demands. This is a shame.

Ed

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33
P
Member
Member
P Offline
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33
Ed -- Thank you. You seem to make a lot of potent observations!
You say "your church" -- I take it then you are not Byzantine Catholic. You really did peg our people with your "youns seem to be fearful of who you really are..." I remember stories from my parents about the old country. Over there, it didn't seem to matter what you called us: Rusyn, Rusin, Ruthenian, Check, Slovak, -- we seemed to answer to whoever was in power.
Either we were fearful, then, too, about who we are -- or maybe we were (and are ) pretty good, since everyone wants a piece of us, and claims us as their own!
Bishops training cantors was a little before my time -- I remember a cantor at our church who had a home provided by the church, and I guess a paycheck. Since I have been cantoring, I have yet to meet a cantor who got rich, or even made a living, cantoring.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by EdHash
Originally Posted by pilgrimcantor
Seems to me we have spent a lot of time, like Martha in the gospel, worrying about the procedures, and rubrics, complaining about the lack of help -- instead of choosing the "better part" -- listening to the Word. Let us pray to the Lord -- Lord, have mercy!

From what I understand, your church was full of Marthaites ("We have to do it THIS way do be considered real Catholics") when it came to Latinization, but Marianists ("let's listen and obey") when it came to restoration. Youns seem to be fearful of who you really are.

My aunt says that in the past your bishops were the ones responsible for providing each community with a cantor who was educated and well trained. My Baptist neighbor is a music minister in her church and gets paid at least $30,000/year for her ministerial leadership. They have darn good music and full participation. Their worship on Sundays lasts at least 3 hours! Your church only makes demands. This is a shame.

Ed


Wow Ed,

There is simply no end to your oft-damning pontification and insight into/about our(/your aunt's) church.

How did you become so very interested in your aunt's church?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
1
Member
Member
1 Offline
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Father David
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.
How about Cardinal Francis Arinze? It should take him all of five minutes to find all the violations of the Vatican directive Liturgiam Authenticam.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
1
Member
Member
1 Offline
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by pilgrimcantor
what exactly are our alternatives?

Andy Kovaly
The alternative is to demand an accurate translation and keep demanding it until we get it. Rome has rejected gender-neutral language. It is wrong to quietly accept the wrong-doings of the bishops. If we unite in our opposition to the wrongness of the revision it will not last.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
Member
Member
E Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by A Simple Sinner
There is simply no end to your oft-damning pontification and insight into/about our(/your aunt's) church.

How did you become so very interested in your aunt's church?

We talk alot. I am allowed to take an interest in her church, right? She takes great interest in my life too. I hope freedom of speech is protected here. Since i am an active Christian, she considers me a person to vent on. She didn't start venting until recently. The main issue is your new worship hymnal. There is no end with her about it. Hardly anyone uses it.

I am also in much dialogue with my Jewish friends about their religion too, but I have no reason to write my questions here.

I don't pontificate. I ask a lot of questions that mostly go unanswered. I am still waiting for Father David Petras to give a theological explanation to *children* of God being in the Beatitudes. It is funny that many Catholics make a big thing about Protestants changing the Scripture, but remain silent when their own bishops alter it. Your observations would be helpful in helping me to understand why Catholics can change the words of Scripure, but not others. As I have posted, there are NO ancient manuscripts - even up to my 1983 copy of the NAB that has *children* of God in Matthew 5:9. Maybe you can encourage the professor of the seminary to explain why? It seems to me that your recent and current Pope had/has issues with such adulterations of Scripture in the name of inclusive language too. Do you consider their concerns and instructions *oft-daming pontifications*? If Byzantine *Catholics* really do believe in the Pope, then it would behoove youns to listen to him and be mindful of his ... pontifications. Those are the only ones that count. Mine are just observations similar to many who actually worship in your churches who are also edged like my dear aunt.

Ed Hashinsky

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
Member
Member
E Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Father David
My observation is that if people detest the translation they will tend to evaluate its reception as disastrous.

Dear Father David,

In addition to my question about *children* of God being in the Beatitudes, I would like to ask another question.

Why do you think that people's evaluation is solely determined by their detestation? Might it be the other way around, that their detestation arises from their evaluation? You are of the opionion that the laity do not have critical skills to make an honest evaluation, hence the attidude that they are all biased by their subjective detestations. This attitude is simply elitist. Sure, not everyone is a full-time liturgist, but I would think that most DO worship at your liturgies. THIS, not academia, makes them true theologians. An Orthodox monk once told me that a true theologian was one who prays. So, if those who pray voice their opinion, it does count. The *little* people can, at times, make very good evaluations. If they DO find something amiss, they can detest it if it is not a good thing.

Ed

Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0