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

I've been meaning to point out another apparently unacceptable address for the priest as witnessed by the translation in the the RDL (found also in the Passaic liturgicon). Apparently this change in the status or perception of the priest happened after 1965 for it is still found in that liturgicon; it is also found in the Ruthenian Recension text (Sluzhebnik and Archieratikon), the Vulgata text, the 1950 Greek text; but not in the RDL.

It occurs after the Great Entrance at the end of a dialog between the priest and concelebrant(s) with the deacon alone asking, "Remember me, holy Master." (1965 liturgicon translation).

Like anthropous/chelovik/men in the Creed, this is another example of the amazing disappearing word act in the RDL: hagie/sjavtij/holy. Of course "holy Reverend Father" or "holy Most Reverend Bishop" is certainly a bit much. And God forbid that even in this dialog that is usually outside the hearing of the people, the deacon should give expression to the proper stature of the priest, and the priest should be reminded of it, hear and be reminded of his sacred character as priest: not reverend but holy.

Apparently the "ordinary" address of Reverend Father (and really the "reverend" part isn't ordinary) is more important than the "holy" or for some reason addressing the priest as "holy" is just too much to bear. Or embarrassing? Goodness, what would someone hearing the priest addressed as "holy Master" think. Fr. David says "call them anything you wish" and the RDL responds, but not "holy."

Having a common designation -- and in translation "master" certainly does the job -- gets the emphasis of the liturgy right: not Reverend this or Most Reverend that, or Bishop or Presbyter or Metropolitan but THE PRIEST, the HOLY Master who offers and leads the offering of the liturgy wherein the Lord, Who is Holy (Lev. 19:2) and Master (Jud. 1:4; Rev. 6:10), acts.

Reading John�s remarks, I can only say that I am diametrically, completely, absolutely and totally in disagreement with everything that he has said or implied.

To wit:
John said: �He (that is, me, Father David) has been asked numerous times to delineate exactly what is so flawed about the official 1942 Ruthenian recension that it cannot be allowed to serve as the normative standard for the Ruthenian Church in America.�

The Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm. It is John who interprets this as only an absolute literal correspondence. The Oriental Congregation, the caretakers of this norm, do not use �absolute literal correspondence� as the standard and have judged the 2007 translation to be in conformity as regards pastoral practice.

John said:
�Liturgical texts are not a �living language,� and they are not �designed for a worshipping community today.�

This is the worst theology I have heard on this issue yet. There is no reason why eternal truths cannot be expressed in living language understandable by the people. It is we who must pray these truths. If something cannot be expressed in a living language, then it is not an eternal truth.
LA is simply warning about being too colloquial.

John said:
�One might argue that there are problems with part or all of the Ruthenian recension, but as it is normative for the entire Ruthenian recension anyone who wishes to change it needs to follow the directives given in the Liturgical Instruction to accomplish that change.�

John�s imterpretations of the Liturgical Instruction are simply too literalist. They are not the only interpretation, nor even those of the legislators.

John said:

�If this includes all appeals including those to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, then I can agree.�

Then you do not accept the present situation, but only a future situation that you think is necessary.


John quoted Benedict XVI:
� ... as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition ... �

Any church that would not accept the usages of �uninterrupted apostolic tradition ... � would be in schism. Uninterrupted apostolic tradition would include the praying of an anaphora, the breaking of bread, the distribution of Holy Communion. There is nothing, and I emphasize nothing, in the 2007 translation that violates �uninterrupted apostolic tradition.� If there is, then the Roman Church that approved it is also in schism.

John said:
�Translate the term �Vladyko� literally and precisely from the Slavonic, not the Greek.�

Why??? Do we make up rules and principles as we go along? The original of the Liturgy is Greek and we have translated from Greek. A translation from Slavonic would bring about the same result. The explanation I gave stands. Your explanation is simply too literalistic.

The "Oriental Congregation". That cracks me up. I think of Latin bishops eating wonton soup and egg rolls on their lunch hour. Why does this "congregation" even exist if the Catholic church is 22 churches of equal dignity?

As far as Father David's comment of the 1942 liturgicon he says:

"The Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm. It is John who interprets this as only an absolute literal correspondence. The Oriental Congregation, the caretakers of this norm, do not use �absolute literal correspondence� as the standard and have judged the 2007 translation to be in conformity as regards pastoral practice."

So Rome speaks with forked tongue? There's a standard, but do what you want anyway? We usually sit, but it's okay to stand on your head if you want to?

Good luck and continued prayers for the Rusyn Greek Catholic Church of America.

Father David is incorrect in stating that it is only me who interprets the 1942 as the absolute literal norm. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church � including the eparchies in America � restated their support for the official Ruthenian liturgical books at their Synod of Bishops which was held in September 2006. In the Resolutions from that Synod we find support and reinforcement for the common, literal standard for the Ruthenian Churches:

The Ukrainians are using official editions as their standard, and preparing translations into Ukrainian from that standard. Carpatho-Rusyins in Europe are reprinting the official books (since they are out of print) and are using them as a literal standard, and the goal to which the celebration of the Liturgy should be raised up to. If we look at the Roman Catholic Church we see that they have a single Latin edition of the Mass and are insisting that it be followed literally, with translations that are complete and accurate.

If one acknowledges a specific edition as normative then one should treat it as normative, as the standard from which exact and complete translations are prepared. When one does not treat the normative standard as a normative standard then one does not accept it as such.
The universal truths are expressed in the official texts of the Liturgy. For Ruthenians this is the 1942 Slavonic edition. Translations from this standard are to be literal and accurate. My points are all taken from Liturgiam Authenticam, so Father David�s disagreement is really with that directive. I refer readers to the relevant excerpts from my previous posts in the current discussions.

I disagree. The Liturgical Instruction is very clear. It cannot be interpreted to mean anything the reformers wish it to mean. It calls for restoration of official forms before updating. It calls for change to be accomplished together with other Byzantines and the Orthodox. There is no other way to interpret this but to restore to official forms before updating, and to update only together with other Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox.

Yes, I do not accept the present situation. I work toward the restoration of the Ruthenian recension as promulgated by Rome in the official and normative Slavonic editions for the Ruthenian recension. I know it works because I have seen it work. I believe the Council of Hierarchs to have made a mistake with the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy. I have asked them to rescind it and am following the appeal process. I am confident that the right of the clergy and the laity to the official and normative forms of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (i.e., the 1942 and other editions) will be upheld. Summorum Pontificum speaks to the extraordinary form of the Latin Mass:
If Pope Benedict XVI has guaranteed the right of the Latin Catholic faithful to an older form the of the Mass of the Latin Church surely he will also guarantee the right of the Ruthenian Catholic faithful to the current, official and normative form of the Byzantine-Divine Liturgy, both in Slavonic and in translation.

The Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America currently prohibits the celebration of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the official and normative form that is �universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition�. The Ruthenian Catholic Church of Pittsburgh does not �concur with the universal [Byzantine] Church.� I am not sure why Father David would see this as a matter of schism. It appears to be a simple mistake.

Why? Because the official and normative text for the Ruthenian recension is in Slavonic. The older Slavonic forms and the Greek recension texts would surely be useful to understand the nuance of the Slavonic text but it is the Slavonic text that is official and which must be translated accurately and literally.

I am not sure what Father David means by �making up rules and principles as we go along�. The basic principle is to respect the official forms laid down by the universal Church (for us the 1942 Slavonic Ruthenian Liturgicon and other official books); to translate them faithfully (literally, balanced with elegance and respect for what is memorized), completely (without additions or subtractions). The principle applies universally, and is the only one I have advocated all along. This principle is put forth in great detail in Liturgicam Authenticam and (ore generally) elsewhere, including the Liturgy Instruction. Rejecting this principle only succeeds in causing great harm to the Church, as we can see in the great harm done to the Ruthenian Church with the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy.

It is a relief that Fr. David writes that the "Ruthenian Recension of 1942 is the norm." The problem is that it does not seem to be treated as the norm, even if one does not take into account the abridgment of this norm in the form of the RDL. Just considering what's left, there are changes that do not fall under the blanket coverage of "pastoral practice" and are beyond the charge of nitpicking literalism. The difference in the Foreword/Preface of the 2007 vs. 1965 liturgicons immediately raises the question of the real status of the Recension as the norm.

So I asked about the status and for clarification of the stated considerations that went into the RDL, 5/29/07.

And again 5/31/07 .

And again and again ...
7/24/07
7/31/07
8/2/07
8/21/07
5/19/08
5/20/08
6/24/08
6/27/08
6/30/08

Since the questions I have asked (paki i paki) were researched and debated for twelve years I would have expected -- hoped -- that answers would be readily available and forthcoming.

The Gallup outreach was indeed closed by Bishop William. With the promulgation of the RDL by Bishop William prior to its required formal promulgation, members of the Gallup outreach who organized the entire retreat (with the approval of the vocation director of the Eparchy) requested that the RDL not be used at the retreat--certainly there was no need at an all male retreat for so called "inclusive language" --i.e. an inauthentic Creed. In response, the RDL, we were told through the Bishop's representative, was going to be show-cased at the Alive in Christ retreat in the summer of 2007. The organizers of the retreat and members of the Gallup outreach and one member of Our Lady of Perpetual Help parish unanimously decided that we could not be supportive of the RDL especially for a vocation retreat for young men. When we communicated with the Bishop that we would no longer host the retreat, he immediately closed down the outreach and requested that any liturgical items be returned to him. Since I was the only official Byzantine in Gallup, I moved because I could no longer justify driving two hours for a distorted Liturgy.

Interestingly enough, the mandate for the anaphora said aloud was not fitting to the Gallup area. The Navajo Indians were far more accustomed to their medicine men saying prayers silently--this information comes from an old Franciscan priest who spoke Navajo and Latin fluently and said that the Navajo never had any serious problems with the traditional Roman Mass. Indeed, he had many Navajo's chanting the the Creed in Latin at his very beautiful Novus Ordo mission near the reservation.


This is a little misleading. In the parish in Albuquerque, the "Red book" was used. There were certain practices (anaphora said aloud) which were taken and other good things like infant communication. There is no hard evidence that demonstrates that the anaphora said aloud was the cause of the success of the parish. Rather, the Roman Diocese of Albuquerque was rather dismal liturgically. The Byzantine parish in Albuquerque offered an orthodox alternative to the Roman Rite there. The parish was full of Roman Rite Catholics as were many of the parishes in the Eparchy of the Van Nuys.

The RDL has now taken the "orthodox" element out of the Ruthenian Church. I predicate that after an older generation of priests moves on, a younger generation (few as they will be) will be ready and waiting to take the Ruthenian Church back to its true tradition just as is occurring in the Roman Rite with the release of the extraordinary form.

Having left Gallup, I now have, through God's good graces, at least nine months out of the year, a weekly Divine Liturgy through the Ukranians in a place even more remote than Gallup. By all accounts, the Liturgy and orthodoxy in my new home will flourish. Indeed several Ruthenians have visited here with the thought of relocating.