www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Some Thoughts on the Revised Divine Liturgy

Circumstances allowed me to visit a couple of Ruthenian parishes recently and I was able to observe first hand the changes with the Revised Divine Liturgy. These are some observations, both positive and negative.

I was very impressed with the pew book and the obvious effort the cantors had put into learning the new melodies so that they could lead the congregation. One parish had installed a song board to indicate pages and melody selections, which made finding the correct page easier. I wish something like this had been available to me when I made my first visits to an Eastern Catholic parish years ago. I also like hearing and singing the Liturgy in English. Slavonic Liturgies are beautiful, but I think having the Liturgy in English works better for evangelization.

Still, I have to admit I do not like some of the changes. I understand the reasons given for the priest taking all prayers aloud, but I think there are problems with this change. First, why must these prayers be sung at every Liturgy? There is an occasional Orthodox parish that I�ve visited that will take some of these prayers aloud (but not on the scale of the Revised Divine Liturgy) and I can�t think of one where I�ve seen them sung. The effect of having all these prayers sung is to (excuse me, but this is how it hit me) make the Liturgy tedious. I still vividly remember the first time I ever heard the Anaphora prayer for the Liturgy of St. Basil years ago. It was not sung, but read loudly with clear enunciation and conviction. I hung on every word. At one parish that I visited recently there was a baptism during the Liturgy and the priest sang the Anaphora very fast to speed things up. Singing takes longer, so if you�re pressed for time you have to sing faster, I guess. I think that mandating the Anaphora prayers be sung aloud at every Liturgy (while trying to keep the time-length of the Liturgy down to an hour and 15 minutes) lessens the sense of worship as they are then rushed through. If the prayers have to be taken aloud at every Liturgy, perhaps the priest could have the freedom to read them aloud instead? Personally, I think it would be better to have the Anaphora taken aloud as a special occasion, such as at major feasts.

Another concern is that it appears litanies and antiphons were trimmed so that the Anaphora could be taken aloud and still fit into a regular Sunday time schedule. I realize that many parishes were already taking shorter antiphons, but I had been blest to be in parishes where the antiphons were not abbreviated. Now, with fewer litanies and mandated abbreviated antiphons, the priestly prayers take up a larger percentage of the Liturgy. It�s a subtle difference, but I felt more like a spectator than an participant as I did previously. I understand pastoral needs and I wouldn�t want to sound like I�d demand every litany be taken at every liturgy, but why set the bar so low? Why not set a minimum of what must be celebrated in every parish and allow parishes which want to take more litanies and antiphons the freedom to do so?

At one parish, the bulletin mentioned that they were in �full compliance� in using the melodies and text promulgated. Something about that bothered me. I have no problem with texts being mandated, but must melodies be mandated also? Even the Roman Church doesn�t do that. Mandating melodies strikes me as repressive. How can the Spirit move people in the Church to develop new arrangements if our melodies must be �in compliance�?

Finally, I continue to be amazed at the resistance to restoring authentic prosphora traditions in Byzantine Catholic parishes. I would have hoped this time of liturgical reform would have done away with the use of pre-cut pieces and restored prosphora loaves. Nothing illustrates the divergence from Byzantine tradition among Byzantine Catholics than the use of pre-cuts. I realize some here maintain this developed as a pious custom, but I think it�s more clear this developed as a latinization during at time when abbreviations became prevalent in our Church. Even Father Petras has so admitted in the past. So, I was anxious to take a look at his catechetical book �Time for the Lord to Act� in the parish bookstore after Liturgy. I may have missed it, but I didn�t see anything in his book on the Proskomedia. This I think was a missed opportunity to provide a catechesis for the meaning of the Proskomedia and the prosphora traditions. My guess is that the restoration of prosphora loaves and the end of pre-cuts is not on the horizon in the Ruthenian Church. At one parish I visited, the priest recesses to the entrance of the Church and there greets parishioners as they leave. It reminded me of the custom at many Protestant and Roman parishes. Why not restore the distribution of antidoron at the front of the church at the end of Liturgy?

A decent and balanced consideration of the changes.

Thank you for your charitable observations and well-thought out reasons for your thinking.

That is most welcome.

Excellent observation. It appears that in some people's eyes, the taking of the Anaphora aloud is more important than the people's prayers. I say they're both important, give those who want the FULLER RUTHENIAN RECENSION the option to do so.



Yes, it's very "big brother" mentality. In some places a little heavy-handedness was needed, in most places not to this degree.



My parish does prosphora & antidoron, and so do a few others where the priest is concerned with restoring the entire Byzantine tradition. If I were a bishop, and we had enough priests to go around, a few priests would be sitting in the monastery until they got the picture.

Merry Christmas!

Our parish does both as well, although I've been confused as to the antidoron . . . this is my first parish in 42 years that does so every week.

The whole purpose of the Pittsburgh Reform was because a small group of Revisionists are embarrassed by the Ruthenian Liturgy and felt that it cannot "enliven the Church." So we have texts that are less accurate - but acceptable to the political left who control the Latin Church. We have rubrics that we are told better educate the faithful - but really are steeped in clericalism. We have mandated music that is so bad you have to laugh at so you don't begin to cry at what was lost.

Rule by fear and demands for clergy to be obedient are no way to build the Kingdom of God.

Here is an interesting comment from wikipedia:

In June 1999 the Council of Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh U.S.A. promulgated the norms of particular law to govern itself. In January 2007 the Council of Hierarchs promulgated greatly revised versions of the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, which separate them from other Byzantines and copy afresh customs from the Latin Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_Catholic_Church

Recluse:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You do realize what Wikipedia is -- a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Anyone can post just about anything (though entries are occasionally locked and edited for objectionable / false content).

What is the point of citing this entry? To confirm that some are obsessively unhappy with the RDL? Wow, what a revelation.

You could have just cited your own or the Administrator's personal blog as evidence.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Not to disparage Wikipedia, but anyone can edit the page listed, which can lead to an agenda driven discourse. Many schools will not allow material quoted from Wikipedia to be used as reference material because there is no chain of reference as to who wrote or edited the entry.

For that matter, much of what appears on the internet can be considered opinion rather than fact since so little referencing is used.

No, I did not know this. I stumbled upon the article. There is no need to be so angry.

Recluse:

Frustration, not anger, my brother.

And perhaps you should be more careful about the sources you cite. It is precisely this kind of sloppiness, in my opinion, that lies at the root of the RDL's few but real problems (inclusive language, mandated rubrics, truncated litanies, questionable translations/transliterations).

Again, I ask: what was the point, the purpose, of your posting the Wiki entry? Were you citing it as an authority to establish that the RDL is an imitation of post-Vatican II Latin Catholic liturgical practice and a departure from the rest of Orthodoxy? If so, call me crazy, but I think that horse has already been beaten beyond recognition. No need to drag him out again -- particularly if you're going to do so with the equivalent of a feather-duster.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos writes:


As they say Down East, never keep a dead horse in the living room!

Fr. Serge

I have a little understanding of the changes w/i the Church some good and some not so good.

Could it be possible that sometimes is seems as though some of the conversations about the changes that the church should or shouldn't do sound like the Rabbi's from the OT, what is law and what isn't considered a law, what is considered clean, and what is considered unclean?.

what is considered correct

if the procedures are "all or some wrong" is the outcome the same?
granted there are good reasons for having procedures followed and would the outcome be considered better?

God Bless,

Dandelion

Dandelion

Yes. And there is good reason to be frustrated.
I'll try to do a better job at policing myself...but thanks for the help brother.
As you say, the problems are very real...of what sloppiness do you speak?
Uh...I don't know about official authority...but I think wiki is accurate with that implication.
Fair enough...I'll put the feather duster away. The dead horse needs to beaten over and over again until the dreadful RDL is rescinded. Is that better my friend?

hi Recluse,
by posting this entry are you trying to show what previous events took place that led to the deviation of the Divine Liturgy and now trying to return to its original roots?

I agree then, understanding history can help correct future directions.

in the 19th and 20th centuries, various Byzantine-Rite Catholics arrived in the United States of America, particularly in coal mining towns. [5] The predominant Latin-Rite Catholic hierarchy did not always receive them well, being disturbed in particular at what they saw as the innovation, for the United States, of a married Catholic clergy. At their request, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States[6] rules already set out in a letter of 2 May 1890 to the Archbishop of Paris,[7]. These rules stated that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939. Dissatisfaction by many Ruthenian Catholics in the United States gave rise to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. (See also Archbishop John Ireland).
Relations with Latin-Rite Catholics have improved, especially since the Second Vatican Council, at which the Ruthenian Church influenced decisions regarding language in the liturgy. [8] (Unlike the former custom in the Latin Church, the Ruthenian Church always celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the Church Slavonic language, an ancient Slavic language.) The Council also reiterated: "The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church."[9]
[ed it]

God Bless,

Dandelion

I believe the RDL took the Church backwards and I continue to pray for my wounded Byzantine Catholic brethren.

Blessings,
R