www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Keep writing to Rome! Letters do work!

Nobody is arguing that the Orthodox have the perfect Liturgy or the most well behaved and devout parishioners. What is being dicussed is the non-organic mandate of gender-neutralized politically correct Liturgy revision in the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

Keep writing letters!!!

If this comment about the Roman Church is as I understand it, that is, an implication that Roman Churches are a social club, I am personally and highly insulted. As a deacon of the Latin Church, I can honestly not think of of any parishes in my diocese that have a social club atmosphere or social club standards, and I have visited, in one way or another, most of these parishes.

Please be careful when, and if you did, cast such aspersions.

And if I am jumping to an unintended conclusion, please accept my apologies.

Dcn. Jonathan

Non-organic mandate? Interesting. Rarely, if ever, has there been a rousing request from the people to change the liturgy, other than to shorten it. Most changes have occurred from the top-down.

The attempt here was to remove some of the Latinizations, and create a more Byzantine liturgy. Did they make mistakes? Sure, they are only human. Criticize them, but do so with agape not oxos.

Yes, I do refer to the RC churches (people, not the RCC itself) as a social club, and if you are a member then you should understand. I have priests who agree with me as well, and they are disheartened by it.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me clarify, first with background. Byzantine churches are much smaller than their Roman counterparts, as a result the priest and laity are closer. Roman churches, by design, are enormous; many priests say they rely on the envelope system as a record for when someone applies for "good catholic" papers (marriage, baptism, etc.), because one priest simply cannot know everyone in a 2500+ family parish.

Now, to the example. At my wife's church, they received a new priest a few years ago, sadly one of his first tasks was to bury a parishioner. Not being familiar with the family, he checked the records. There were no records of anyone in the family attending church for over a decade. When he asked them about their participation they responded that they attend only on Christmas and Easter; pressed on this, they admitted than neither they, nor their mother, had even attended this much since the kids (now in their 30's) had received confirmation. But, they still considered themselves "good catholics" and were upset that he did not.

Now, this is an extreme case, but not unusual. I am surrounded by four very large RC churches, and I have attended Mass at them on more than one occasion. Speaking with the priests I figure, on average, about 30-40% of the "registered catholics" attend with any regularity. When work needs to be done, only about 1% of the church shows up (example, the church fairs they all have each summer). But, have a summer picnic (and two of them do) and about 20% of the church shows up to chow down. One priest told me he actually received a call from one irate family, seems that they weren't invited to attend the picnic - it had been in the bulletins and announced for over a month prior to the event.

Many families feel that just because they were baptized, regardless of attendance or adherence to teachings, they are catholics and deserving of the sacraments. Try and tell them otherwise, and you will get an earful. Sadly, the church herself does little to discourage the practice/belief.

I will give kudos to one parish in eastern Pittsburgh. My niece went there to arrange to be married; father asked her where she attended church, and she confessed that she hadn't since she left our area over 3 years prior. He refused to marry her since, in his opinion, she was not a catholic in good standing. She was angry. Eventually, she went back and asked what it would take, he said he wanted to see her there every Sunday for a year, along with her husband-to-be (who also didn't attend). I spoke with him after the wedding, and he says he does this regularly - the church should not be a social club, you don't have a "right" to membership just because you were baptized.

In the ancient days, missing enough Divine Liturgies in a row would earn you excommunication, now you can break every teaching of the church and still receive the Sacraments (witness Ted Kennedy).

If that was the true purpose, then it is my opinion that they failed.

The letter I sent to Rome, (before my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy), was very civil and to the point.

I am pleased that you are happy in your new church. I am fascinated that the people who complain about the gender-neutralization of the Byzantine Liturgy find comfort in the church that gender-neutralized the Bible.

The new Divine Liturgy isn't perfect, but neither is it heretical, I cannot say the same about the OSB.

Are you referring to the New Orthodox Study Bible?

Ung

Yes.

Administrator's note:

We are definitely off topic here. Posts concerning other issues should be posted in te various sections and threads concerning the topics. I would strongly suggest that we post on-topic or this thread will face closure.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Some attention is being drawn to the new translation in Rome. See the Zenit article "Appropriate Penances." At the bottom of that article a specific reference is made to the application of Liturgiam Authenticam to the Revised Divine Liturgy.

http://www.zenit.org/article-23536?l=english

From the above link:

Second, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is a document that refers exclusively to the Latin liturgy. Therefore its norms have no legal force with respect to the translation of any Eastern liturgy. An Eastern translator would be wise to take its common-sense provisos into account but would not be legally bound to do so.

According to Canon 657.2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the authority that approves the translation of texts for liturgical use in those Eastern Churches that have patriarchs or major archbishops is the principal authority of each respective Church. All that he is required to do is to send a report to the Holy See.

Therefore it is possible (but not certain) that the translations of the Byzantine liturgy that reportedly upset some members of the faithful were actually never revised in Rome at all.

It is almost certain that they were not revised by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, the Vatican dicastery that issued "Liturgiam Authenticam," as this congregation deals almost exclusively with the Latin liturgy.

The specific reference:

"First of all, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is neither the mere opinion of some officials nor, strictly speaking, a doctrinal document. It is an "instruction," a technical legal document that establishes binding rules regarding how to translate liturgical texts from Latin into any other language...

The document did not condemn the use of inclusive language per se, although this style could be considered as inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon the syntax of the English tongue.

Second, "Liturgiam Authenticam" is a document that refers exclusively to the Latin liturgy. Therefore its norms have no legal force with respect to the translation of any Eastern liturgy. An Eastern translator would be wise to take its common-sense provisos into account but would not be legally bound to do so.

According to Canon 657.2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the authority that approves the translation of texts for liturgical use in those Eastern Churches that have patriarchs or major archbishops is the principal authority of each respective Church. All that he is required to do is to send a report to the Holy See."

Deacon Lance to the rescue!

Since the Pittsburgh Metropolia has neither a Patriarch (other than the Pope) nor a Major Archbishop, there is no one other than Rome to ratify the approval given by the Council of Hierarchs. Despite repeated requests to produce the document of Rome's ratification, the partisans of the recasting/retranslation have consistently refused to do so. Put up or shut up!

Just by way of example, when an Irish translation of the Divine Liturgy was produced by and for my parish, we obtained written approval from Patriarch Maximos V, which was published in Le Lien and which is included in the complete text. Anyone who wants it is welcome to read it, provided that he reads Irish with sufficient comprehension.

Father Serge

Just popped in for a second, I'm out of the country on business and don't have much access to the internet. Noticed that the conversations stopped for a while (Aug 22-Sept 5), glad to see they restarted.

Question for Father Serge, doesn't the Metropolitan Archbishop have that authority? I've never heard of a "Major" Archbishop, is that another rank in the RCC?

Don't know when I'll get an opportunity to access the net again, but will enjoy reading the reply when I do.