www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A Letter to Rome in the Rough

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have not yet written to Rome with my concerns about the RDL, as Fr. Thomas Loya urged me to do. It is high time I did so.

Below is part of a piece I posted on another forum. I am thinking about revising it and making it the basis for my letter to Rome. Of course the style will have to be very different. I want to make it more complete and yet also keep it concise. So I would welcome any thoughtful criticisms or suggestions to this end.

______________________________________________________________

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church in the U.S. has indeed made a change for the worse in its "Revised Divine Liturgy." I will list and very briefly comment on some of the problems with it.

Mandatory abbreviations of the ritual. There has always been openness in the Byzantine tradition, both Catholic and dissident, to taking parochial abbreviations. Nevertheless the full ritual was always presented in the Liturgicon and other service books, so that anyone could distinguish between what the full norm is and what the parochial abbreviation is. With the new books the usual and customary abbreviations are the only thing printed, and they are mandatory. This is a serious breach of tradition. In the case of my own parish it is a major loss since ten years ago we took all three antiphons of three verses each, with the little litany between them, at the beginning of the Liturgy. Now we have books which print only the first verse of each antiphon and the little litanies are banished.

The new music. The RDL books contain standardized notation for several settings of various liturgical chants, and it is in the style of Carpatho-Rusyn plainsong. However, this actually limits the musical repertoire because only the music contained in the books is officially permitted, and we have a vast number of settings which have been dumped. Our wonderful oral tradition of plainsong, passed from cantor to cantor through generations, with local variations everywhere, has been effectively replaced with a sanitized, standardized, everywhere-the-same music; we now have a McLiturgy.

Further, the job was terribly botched in matching music to the natural accents of the text. To give but one example, the wording of the Little Doxology was changed from "Glory be to the Father," etc. to "Glory to the Father." No problem with that, but where the music previously placed the emphasis on "be" (Glo-ry BE to the Father) it now emphasizes "to" (Glo-ry TO the Father). This is simply ridiculous. You don't ever emphasize prepositions. It should be "Glory to the FA-ther and to the Son, etc.

Also our beautiful hymns have been abolished. In the course of four centuries our Ruthenian Church had brought forth a great treasury of general, seasonal, Marian, and Eucharistic hymns or chorales. Even the Soviets respected this poetic and musical legacy. But not the liturgical Nazis now in charge of feeding the sheep. Or should I say, trying experiments on us rats.

The mandated taking of the presbyteral prayers out loud. This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists. We formerly had a beautiful practice in which the most part of the Eucharistic Prayer was said quietly at the altar while the choir and people sang covering chants, some with melismatic phrases. Now both text and music are trimmed down so that all must "listen prayerfully" to every word that the priest prays. Gone is the sense of Mystery.

The arbitrary and unnecessary changes in the translation. These are too numerous to list, but here are some of the more jarring ones: "Let us commit ourselves...to Christ our God" instead of "Let us commend ourselves..." "Commit" smacks of individual self-determination, while "commend" expresses self-entrustment to God's mercy. The Greek word Paratitheme means to "hand over" and has always been translated "commend."

In the Eucharistic Prayer, "The New Testament" has been changed to "New Covenant." Diatheke could mean either, but the context, in which Christ as Testator is bequeathing his Body and Blood, his very life, to his disciples for all time, demands the word "Testament." There is no good reason to say "Let us offer the Holy Anaphora in peace" when we formerly had the "Holy Oblation." In the anamnesis the Greek simply reads "We offer You Yours of Your own, in behalf of all and for all. There's no way you can make the words out to mean "always and everywhere."

Worst of all in this regard, and the most controversial by far, is the use of horizontal gender-inclusive language. In the Creed, instead of "Who for us men and for our salvation" they have "For us and for our salvation." If the word men is not important here but merely expendable, why did not the Creed originally say, Who for our salvation came down from heaven, etc? Why the double phrase in the original? The answer lies in the fact that the Creed was alluding to Genesis 1: 26. Man was made in the Image of God because the Incarnation was God's plan from the beginning.

A special problem of inclusive language occurs in the word Philanthropos (lover of man). It was previously translated "Lover of mankind." Now it is "Lover of us all." The visual analogy would be to slap a yellow smiley face over the face of Christ Pantokrator. Further, the phrase "Our God who loves mankind" is used over and over again in the Liturgy. It is an assault on truth and sanity to hear constantly, "Our God who loves us all." And of course the revisers changed "brethren" to "brothers and sisters." All of this is nothing but capitulation to Anti-Christian political correctness, which is part of cultural Marxism. The plea that such changes are needed to communicate effectively in modern English is hogwash.

The irony of all this is that it is simply another phase of Latinization of the Byzantine churches in communion with Rome. But instead of the symbolic Latin usages, such as statues, Sacred Heart devotions, etc. we now have the Latinization of assimilation to modernity and false ecumenism.

By the way, this liturgical "reform" has been carried out contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff. Liturgiam Authenticam, while addressed primarily to the Latin Church, sets forth principles that are universal. And it specifically rejects all inclusive language, not only vertical, dealing with God, but horizontal, dealing with Man. And I know from interviewing Father Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., a known proponent of inclusive language, that he was the only one in the Oriental Congregation who reviewed and approved the work of the revision committee. It was not approved by the Holy Father at all.

______________________________________________________________

... McLiturgy, good analogy!

Ung

I like it very much. Excellent job. I have only one criticism. I think it would be best to tone down some the descriptive rhetoric when it comes to opinion, so as not to show any type of irrational anger. Yes. Many of us are angry at what has been done to the beloved Divine Liturgy---but restraint must be shown when appealing to Rome. Here are a couple of examples:


I might change the phrase "the job was terribly botched" to "There appears to be much confusion..." (or something like that).

Also, I would delete the following phrase completely:

"This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists."

Please send this after some minor revisions. It is very good!!

God bless you,
R

Thanks for your thoughtful efforts. In case it is helpful, the list of deletions should also include the sentences about "Nazis" and "rats." These statements really do not help you to make your case.

I'm not clear what you are referring to in the part about the "Soviets." Since it appears to delute the case you are trying to make as well as disincline the reader to be particularly sympathetic, it is also a candidate for change/deletion.

A student

Yes. More good advice.

I think Recluse offers good advice, and I join him. I most definitely would not refer to taking the presbyteral prayers out loud as a "a stupid hobby-horse of modern liturgists." There are good, strong arguments for doing so. Now I'm not saying that there aren't also good, strong arguments for taking those same prayers silently--just that we ought to be able to disagree about this without resorting to calling each other's positions "stupid."

Ryan

Here's a simple but difficult suggestion (yes, it is possible to be both simple and difficult!):

Have your letter translated into Italian, by someone who knows the sort of Italian used by the Roman Curia. This will have two effects: it will make it easier for your letter to reach the attention of the right people, and the very work of translation will tone the text down!

Fr. Serge

Good advice has already been given. I will add more specifically that one needs to remove both all emotion and any colloquialism. Some of the terms in the original post are example of both, and would only result in the letter being ignored.

Having letters translated into Italian is a good idea. My letters to Rome were all in English (I was assured by the pro-nuncio's office in Washington, DC that the Oriental Congregation was well versed in English but certainly having it Italian would be a plus).

Keep your letter, straightforward and polite. There is enough evidence available from good scholarship to make appeals for a restoration of the official Ruthenian recension that will be successful.

Of course, those who support the Reform are also encouraged to write their letters.

I find it contradictory that some writers will state that the Eastern Bishops need to be given more autonomy from Rome so that the Orthodox will feel less anxious about future unity while at the same time others urge letters to Rome urge them in an attempt to have Rome override the U.S. Byzantine Bishop's revised liturgy.

Thank you to all. Points well taken. I'll be back to let you critique the second draft. Fr. Serge, how's your Italian?

By the way, we had a very good discussion about the Ruthenian Recension on the Incorruptibles Forum. Here's a link to the thread:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/traditionalcatholics/vpost?id=2526876

What's contradictory about having a supreme authority in the Church, but without micro-management? (I know, I know, this is fodder for a different thread).

"The mandated taking of the presbyteral prayers out loud. This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists. We formerly had a beautiful practice in which the most part of the Eucharistic Prayer was said quietly at the altar while the choir and people sang covering chants, some with melismatic phrases. Now both text and music are trimmed down so that all must "listen prayerfully" to every word that the priest prays. Gone is the sense of Mystery."

Isn't out loud the earlier practice? Fr. Taft seems to think so and has mentioned it in a number of his books.

Father Taft informs us that 1) the priestly prayers of the Anaphora were indeed taken out loud and 2) that they were not proclaimed for the hearing of the people.

I think it is misleading to state that the recent mandate in the Ruthenian Catholic Church to pray these prayers out loud is simply and only a restoration of an earlier practice. In that earlier time these were the prayers of the priest, which he happened to pray out loud. Father Taft notes that no attempt was made by the priest to proclaim them for the hearing (education) of the people. In this new mandate, which imitates the current custom in the Latin Rite Novus Ordo, the prayers are being prayed out loud for an entirely new purpose � the education of the faithful. Prayers which were for and about God are now for and about the education of the faithful. It�s just not the same thing as what happened in the early Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has stated that this custom didn�t and doesn�t work in the Novus Ordo, and there are numerous reports that he himself prays these prayers aloud but in a low voice (i.e., prayerfully, not to proclaim) in his private Masses. No one in the Ruthenian Church has offered any demonstrable evidence telling the clergy and laity why liberty on this issue (for the individual priest to pray these prayers either quietly or aloud as the Spirit leads him) cannot be allowed. There are numerous discussions about this specific topic so readers might want to use the search tool or browse past discussions in this forum.

In the larger discussion no one who supports the Revised Divine Liturgy has offered a single reason why the official 1942 Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy is so unacceptable that it needed to be prohibited in English. All that has been offered has been statements of personal preference by those who prepared the RDL. It is really shameful that some felt that the Ruthenian recension needed to be prohibited in English celebrations in the Ruthenian Church! Pray God that ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that local bishops may not prohibit the Liturgy of their own Church.

I�m sorry, but your post misrepresents what Father Taft said. I refer you to pages 166-167 of �Through Their Own Eyes.�

You say that Father Taft � informs us that .... 2) [the prayers] were not proclaimed for the hearing of the people.� He says simply that the prayers were not �proclaimed,� that is, perhaps chanted in the proclamative style that we now use frequently, for physical reasons, they said the prayers with bowed heads. He does not say that the people didn't hear them. In any case, Taft says only that this is �perhaps.� You then say �prayers which were for and about God are now for God and the education of the people.� Taft says the exact opposite, �The prayers aren�t for God, they�re for us.� (P. 167, lines 2 and 3). Taft quotes Justinian�s Novella 137, which reads, �all bishops and presbyters to say the prayers used in the divine oblation [ = Divine Liturgy, my note] and holy baptism not inaudibly, but in a voice that can be heard by the faithful, so that the souls of those who listen may be moved to greater compunction and raise up glorification to the Lord God.� (Quoted by Taft on page 103 of the same book) I cannot see how anything could be more clear. The prayers do not tell God what he has done for us, but they raise up our souls and minds to glorify him for what he has done for us.

I thank Father David for his post.

I have quoted the entire section from pages 166 and 167 that Father David references in previous threads. I will again quote a portion of it (this is a transcription of spoken Q&A with Father Taft responding):
Father Taft appears to be saying is that the average worshipper would not have heard the priest praying his prayers aloud because in the culture of that time every individual prayed his prayers aloud. "[T]he person in Church by himself or herself said their prayers aloud. We know that from ancient culture." It is very logical to conclude that the prayers were not being prayed for them to hear (education) but that they were being prayed for their salvation.

I acknowledge that Father Taft notes later that �[t]he prayers aren�t for God, they�re for us.� I have quoted this previously and spoken to it. There is good reason to indicate that Father Taft is incorrect in this conclusion. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted in a speech published in Eutopia magazine (May/June 1999) that the Eucharistic Liturgy was not about us or for us (in the sense of education of the faithful).
The focus of the Eucharistic Liturgy was not man but God. It is �celebrated for God and not for spectators.� �Its sole intent was to be before God and for God �euarestos euprosdektos��.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) continues (and I quote this separately for emphasis):
This is important. When you make the Liturgy about us, about education, about socialization, about the construction of the community it fails to be about God. It is only when human aims are discarded (setting aside "all earthly cares") that "His nearness is made present".

Now we add this the very practical fact that in his �Spirit of the Liturgy� Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) says that the practice has not borne fruit it is illogical to mandate a custom that imitates the custom of the Roman Catholics (done for the same reason not long after their experiment).

Yes, the prayers raise up our souls and minds to glorify God. The prayers accomplish this by their being prayed, not by us being educated by them. Worship is not about the education of man but about glorifying God.

The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud has not borne fruit in the Latin Church and no less a man than the one who is now Pope Benedict XVI has stated that there are problems with the custom. That alone should be ample evidence that mandating a custom others are having problems with is not appropriate. Still, even if Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) had stated that such a custom was bearing fruit it would be inappropriate to mandate it, as the Ruthenian Church should be respectful of the need for unity on liturgical matters with both other Churches that use the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) as well as the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). If the custom is of the Holy Spirit it will develop organically across Byzantium. If it is not of the Holy Spirit mandates will only work for a little while, and ultimately harms the liturgical unity the Ruthenian Catholic Church shared with the larger Byzantine Church.

I continue to pray the Lord God that the ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that the Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that the local bishops may not prohibit the full Liturgy of their own Church.