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

Felix,

What do you specifically like about the RDL, as opposed to the version before it, or an Orthodox liturgy? I find this kind of puzzling, since the overwhelming majority of Byzantine Catholic posters here do not like the RDL.

Forgive me if this comes off gruffly.

Do we think it is the liturgy or the Ruthenian mindset that is to fault here? I can speak to my parish at least in years passed refused to accept converts and told them to go to the Roman parish "down the street" or were happy to talk to interested people on the phone until the priest asked the last name of the caller and then on finding the name to be Anglo-Saxon the tone changed drastically.

Fast forward 3 years under a new priest. Of our last few Baptisms and Chrismations 2 new parishioners are black, a nice hispanic family, and none of the rest were from Byzantine Catholic backgrounds. We have an average of 1-2 converts a month. When the children go up to hear the Gospel there are 15-20 of them. Everyone sings. The fellowship hall is full after the divine liturgy. What a difference a mindset changed.

The green book is certainly change, but can we cite it for the inward looking attitude or the falling birth rates?

We have seen the true light! We have received the Heavenly Spirit! We have found the true faith! Therefore, let us worship the undivided Trinity who has saved us!

Let us evangelize the unchurched and shine that light on the world. It does not grow dimmer with sharing, but brighter. The people that join our church still don't know "whether they are on heaven or on earth" regardless of the complaints those who experienced the previous ways make.

Etnick,

I do not have access to entire texts of the pre-RDL use, so its harder for me to say what I like about the RDL in comparison to pre-RDL usage. I can comment on the RDL versus OCA Diocese of the South usage - I am familiar with both. In addition to my personal experiences of the RDL and the OCA Archbishop Dmitri liturgy text, I have performed, tonight, a side-by-side comparison of the texts for each service. This post reflects both my general feelings about each text as well as any observations I have made based upon a comparison of the two. I would add that these are just my opinions, just my preferences. I don't in any way mean that I think the Archbishop's text is improper. I respect him and recognize his expertise in the area of liturgy. I have not made comparisons with other Orthodox texts, but I would note a familiarity with the Greek and Antiochian texts and I would note that I love Antiochian style chant (its my fav).

1. I note that the introduction to both the Archbishop Dmitri (AD) and RDL texts claims that they are translations from the Greek. To me, this seems to indicate that both the AD and RDL translator(s) looked to the Greek texts as authoritive.

2. The RDL introduction indicates that its translation of biblical quotes and allusions was guided by the New American Bible and the Grail Psalter I own the NAB and think its a decent modern English translation. I see no problem with its utilization for guidance. I do not own a copy of the Grail Psalter, but I have no thoughtful and serious complaints regarding the psalms as found in the RDL text. By contrast, the AD text used the King James Bible and a similarly styled version of the Psalter for guidance, making changes where necessary for accuracy. I have personally experienced this usage. I find the chanting of archaic English more difficult to take in and comprehend than modern English. This is especially true when the person chanting is chanting too quickly saying or not properly enunciating his words. I find the acoustics at St. Seraphim's only compounds the problem. I know many do not feel like KJV English is more difficult to comprehend than modern English. I must simply disagree, especially when awkward word order is part of that equation. And as we all know, liturgical texts often have a less than optimal word order. This is sometimes because of the music/chant setting, sometimes because of poor translation, and sometimes necessary to make the texts sound adequately reverent. I think it occurs more often in texts using archaic English.

3. Of course, this brings us to the use of inclusive language, which can be found in the RDL. I prefer the use of inclusive language, unless it obscures intended messages found in the texts being translated here. I am no expert on ancient languages, but from my examination of both texts, as well as personal, and some review of the posts on this site, it appears to me that the inclusive language used in the RDL is appropriate. As the RDL appears more in step with my preference for inclusive language than the AD, I favor it over the AD in regards to this issue.

4. I prefer the AD into ("Bless, Master") to the RDL ("Reverend Father, give the blessing"). However, I think both sound too much like commands and not enough like requests.

5. I do not like the AD "now and ever, and unto ages of ages" or the RDL "now ever and forever." I prefer a simpler "now and forever." So I don't like either the AD or the RDL texts in this regard, both seem to have unnecessary and meaningless additional words.

6. The AD seems to prefer that the choir and reader give responses, whereas the RDL seems to prefer congregational responses. I prefer congregational because I think it more reflects the role of the laity in coming together as Church. Plus, I like to have as much opportunity to participate in the praise of the Trinity as I can.

7. The RDL indicates when the faithful may "sit." I also note that BCA parishes seem to be more likely to have pews or extra places to sit than OCA Diocese of the South parishes. I prefer pews/chairs be available for everyone, not just old people and pregnant mothers. I know others think pews and any other adequate form of congregational seating have no place in a Byzantine church. I like pews, I like them. I admit it. Bottom line, I think its nice to sit down from time to time.

8. Both texts have what the RDL calls the "Litany of Peace." The RDL has three antiphons; the AD has three antiphons (I recognize that's an oversimplification). The BA has prayers between the antiphons, the RDL does not. The AD prayers don't seem necessary as the requests found in these prayers have already been covered by the Litany of Peace.

9. I prefer the AD "Let us attend" to the RDL "Let us be attentive." Although, I think the latter may be a better rendering in English, I have to wonder if an even better way to say this isn't out there.

10. I think we should either make catechumens leave the liturgy (as well as all non-Catholics) or we should not say "Catechumens, depart." Therefore, because the AD requires it, and the RDL omits it, I prefer the RDL to the AD.

11. I prefer the inclusive language of the Creed as found in the RDL to the language of the AD Creed. Further, I see no reason to use the archaic "spake by the prophets" as found in the AD.

12. Obviously, there are differences in that the AD text has more prayers and litanies than the RDL. I can't find an instance where this bothers me.

13. I do not like the AD or RDL Our Father. I would have preferred to go with a more modern translation.

14. I know many people do not like the music forced upon their parishes by the RDL, however, I would note that Archbishop Dmitri makes changes to music and requires his parishes to conform to those changes. This stuff seems to happen. Also, while it may be a change, I really like the RDL music. I admit it, I like it. That being said, I still like Antiochian style chant more. The music at St. Seraphim's is good, but the focus on choir singing, to the general exclusion of the congregation, is not to my liking.

15. Length, the DA always seems to last a long time at St. Seraphim's. I prefer brevity over unnecessary length. I know others think the length is necessary. But I don't (I have a 2 year old daughter). I think the time required for the RDL is a good amount of time. If people want more church, they can come more often.

16. In general, I think the RDL is inspiring and truly conveys the message of love and hope found in the Gospel. It seems like a very optimistic text, a glass-half-full text. I always leave thinking how much I enjoyed the service. I know we are there for God, but its still nice to feel good when you leave from the liturgy.

So, that's what I like and what I don't like. Is the RDL exactly how I'd do it? I don't know, I didn't try to translate it, so I can't say what I would have done. But it looks like a proficient and reasonable effort. I enjoy the RDL services I attend. I am, however, open to whatever reasonable liturgical text the BCA requires. My job is to attend, pray, etc. The hierarchy has the job of promulgating a text. Except in a grave situation, I try to focus just on the job committed to me.

Have a good weekend everyone,

Felix

... Continued prayers for the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.

Brat' Etnick,

Just came back from Staryj Kraj. I was in heaven last Sunday when I had the extreme priviledge of attending Utrenia, Sluzhba Bozhe AND Vechernia in my Dido's parish. I had to explain to all of my Rusyn cousins how those of us now have truncated liturgy and how we NEVER have Utrenia and Vechernia here at our "Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church of America" parish. They were all in disbielf! Fortunately, I have lots of analog and digital video clips that I replay. Does anyone know how I could upload they short digital video clips??

Ung

Which section of the Old Country is this parish in? Sounds like Transcarpathia to me, but I could be wrong. Anyway, glad you had a lovely time. By the way, the privilege is enviable, but not extreme.

As to the reproduction of the video clips, I'm a technological moron, but I might suggest getting everything on to a DVD (in something resembling the correct order) and making the DVD available for a modest consideration.

Fr. Serge

O. Serge,

Da,Zakarpats'ka Rajon. Selo Ungcsertezs of course! !

Ung

Since we never had the pristine, uncut, original liturgy in this part of the world to begin with, there's not that much difference between the RDL and what we had. I realize that the majority of forum poster do not like the RDL, but is that representative of the majority of the church? No one has taken a poll of the people to see what the majority thinks. Some of the forum posters come across as exteremely bitter and biased against any change, no matter how small. It also appears that some in our church leadership may look at this forum as nearly schismatic and disobedient, the hostility is so great. I have seen and read references to the "cyber war" that goes on here. Again, does that represent the views of the majority, or just the minority of Byzantines who actually read and post here? Here's my approach. It's my church and I'm not leaving. I may not like everything that happens, but I can prayerfully and charitably work to change those things I don't like. I refuse to become an embittered whiner, since I think the devil always wins in that situation. Look at the poor Latins. It took around 40 years of work to get back the liturgy they had lost after Vatican II. A dear friend of mine went to her grave working for what Pope Benedict has restored. She never saw the result of her labor. But the important point is that she stayed in the fight and worked for change.

I think that this forum serves a purpose for those against the RDL -- it gives us a place to share our feelings and our desire for our own, full Liturgy, that are otherwise ignored by our Hierarchy. How many people have written, and actually received a well-thought out reply, or an invitation to sit-down one-on-one to talk with the Bishop about the Liturgy? I can assure you, very few, if any.

I think most people who abhor the RDL feel one of the main problems is it appears the RDL was created in a vacuum. We have been asked/told by Rome to consult with other Byzantines & Orthodox to work on a common translation. This was our opportunity, and we in essence thumbed our noses at this request. Aside from creating a more accurate translation, like proper rubrics and "unto ages of ages" (sorry Felix), and adding the word orthodox, it would have brought us closer to unity. Instead, this moves us farther away, and that's why it needs to be recalled.

It's all about the big picture.

I understand your position. But has anyone ever established what the ordinary folks think? Most of what I hear about the people objecting to the RDL is so anecdotal it's not believable. It seems to be along the lines of, "my aunt hates it" or "people have left my parish." Is the aunt representative of anyone, and were people leaving anyway? There's nothing really accurate and verifiable about any of this. Maybe things are different where you are, but BCA liturgies have been notorious for years for being abbreviated and not following the books. Most of us have never seen that original liturgy that folks here seem to pine for. Someone always seems to mention a liturgy they saw at "St. Anachronistic" that was pristine, but is that really representative or an abberation? Again, where are any verifiable numbers or facts concerning the RDL?

For someone who has said he quit discussing this, you have quite a bit more to say.



I'm not sure what "pristine, uncut, original liturgy" means. Could you elaborate since no one has yet used that term in this Forum?

Many Greek Catholics have indeed historically experienced a fuller liturgy - many of our older people know it from years gone by, as Ung has mantioned. And some of these dear living saints even know a great deal by heart. In most of the UGCC parishes I have worked in, all I have to do is start a hymn and they are there singing usually without the need of a book.

If one travels outside of their own small parochial world along the Eastern Christian horizon, whether it is to other Greek Catholic churches or Orthodox, differences will become apparent. For those more experienced in Eastern Christian liturgy (who in general seem to be the majority of those opposed to the RDL) the fullness of revelation and praise of God is an important thing, indeed.

Every Catholic, whether Greek Catholic, Latin or some other Eastern Catholic, should have the opportunity to know the fuller expression of their liturgical heritage. That goes for the Byzantine Rite as well as the Latin, Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

FDRLB

I keep reading the same complaints from the same individuals about the people objecting to the RDL. I haven't heard the people objecting to anything, other than the liturgy being too long, etc. Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that the people object to the RDL? I am open minded on it and will listen to any facts anyone cares to present. I wouldn't say the RDL is perfect by any means, but I haven't made up my mind on it. As far as I know, the Ukrainian church hasn't changed anything and this is strictly a BCA matter. However, there isn't a Ukrainian church within hundreds of miles, if not more, of here. Consequently, I don't have a basis for comparison between the two. We do have OCA and Greek Orthodox churches here, but I suspect they were probably different from the BCA before the RDL.

Come to Pittsburgh and I will physically take you to speak with many parishioners in many parishes who are in opposition to the RDL.

Ung

I can't go to Pittsburgh at the moment, but that is something I can plan for the future.

It's refreshing to see that you are open minded.

I suggest an exercise in thought. Much of the RDL (sans inclusive language, music, and a few other items) had been implemented in the past in Parma and then Passaic when Bishop Pataki went there. But the whole chopping up and shortening of the liturgy and ignoring traditional rubrics has been going on for a long time. Now this is the norm across the Archeparchy as a whole.

Was the BCA growing or declining in this period?

Was the BCA getting more or less vocations?

Why when I visit BCA churches in my travels am I generally the only one without grey hair?

Why have there been countless incidences of people coming up to me and telling me that the sound of my kids was the first time in years that they heard a child in church?

Are the really any successes or trends on a large scale that have ever occurred from chopping up and removing traditional rubrics?

Why would anyone expect the RDL to all of sudden bring growth, success, more vocations etc. ?

Someone wrote that one year is not enough to see the results. What would be a proper length of time? Do we have to wait until parishes are being closed down in the future in order to have enough evidence?

Where is the evangelization plan and actions to implement one and grow the church?

I could see the proponents of the RDL having a leg to stand on if there was success across the country with the revisions of the past, but I really don't see any leg for them to stand on.

Monomakh