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!

Fr. Serge,

You should be careful quoting your canons:

Canon 657

1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the
Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.

2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended
even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to
establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an
attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, 1. In
making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, 1.

Proskvnetes,

Not Fr. Serge but the above should answer your first question. The below should answer your second.

TITLE 5

The Major Archiepiscopal Churches

Canon 151

A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or
recognized by the Supreme Authority of the Church, who presides
over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris not endowed with the
patriarchal title.

Canon 152

What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or
patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal
Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly
provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 153

1. A major archbishop is elected according to the norm of cann.
63-74.

2. After acceptance of the election, the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church must notify the Roman Pontiff through a synodal letter about the canonical conduct of the election; however, the one who is elected, in a letter signed in his own hand, must petition the confirmation of his election from the Roman Pontiff.

3. After having obtained the confirmation, the one who is elected, in the presence of the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church, must make a profession of faith and promise to carry out faithfully his office; afterwards his proclamation and enthronement are to be performed. If, however, the one who is elected is not yet an ordained bishop, the enthronement cannot validly be done before he receives episcopal ordination.

4. If however the confirmation is denied, a new election is to be conducted within the time established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 154

Major archbishops hold the precedence of honor immediately after
patriarchs according to the order in which the Church over which
they preside was erected as a major archiepiscopal Church.


The chief hierarchs of the Ukrainian, Romanian, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankar Churches have this title.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Just seems a litlle silly for lm to quote a passage that actually undermines his position.

"...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!"

I think the canons cited show that the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs is competent to approve and publish liturgical books. Rome only reviews them and grants its recognitio.

It is here I think problems arise. Is recognitio "approval" or something else, something less? I think it must entail some sort of approval even if it does not denote enthusiastic endorsement as a protocol number is given.

As to Fr. Serge's and others contention that the document must be provided, I must ask, is this an accusation that our hierachs lied about the recognitio?

The 65 Liturgicon does not publish this letter. It simply states:
Publication made upon the confirmation of the Sacred Oriental Congregation Prot. N. 380/62 December 10, 1964

The 06 Liturgicon states:
This revision was approved by the Council of Hierarchs and submitted to the Apostolic See for approval, in accordance with canon 657. The Apostolic See granted this approval under protocol number 99/2001, dated 31 March, 20001.

For those so concerned with a copy of the approval/recognitio letter why not simply write Rome and ask for it since they issued it?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Careful indeed!


While Can. 40, 1 is rightly noted in Can. 657 regarding the OBLIGATIONS of the hierarchs, the corresponding responsibilities of all others in the Church, Can. 40, 2 & 3, should also be acknowledged.

The great conundrum is when the "Christian faithful", for instance, find themselves having to "foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite" among their own bishops.

We have, of course, been over this before. My take (again): If there had been a request to publish the 1965 approval it should have been done; if not, publish it now and the 2001 letter since it (the latter letter, if you will) has been requested -- they are significant documents for our church; asking Rome, sure, but really, why not simply get it from our own (Pittsburgh), after all.

Fr. Deacon,

Canon 657 is objective and verifiable. Canon 40 1. is subjective. Who decides what changes meet the criteria of organic process? One must assume that Rome judges that to be our hierarchs.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Including the letter giving the approval for the 1965 text would have been welcome, but at the end of the discussion it was, after all, a translation of the Recensio Ruthena text, not an innovation.

The recasting published two years ago is hardly a simple translation; it is a drastic recasting, and my reading of the canons does not convince me that one Metropolitan Province has any right to do that without higher approval.

Fr. Serge

Subjective? certainly in a sense, but stated. Who decides? ultimately the rightful authority. And the rightful authority is rightfully to be obeyed, but then again, as history also testifies, Caesar can make his horse a senator.

Fair and balanced--that's all!


It is an interesting proposition to suggest that a word could be removed from an ancient Creed--contrary to even what the Lutherans have recently done -- and suggest that this is a subjective matter and truly one of "organic growth." As I have mentioned before, the only one of the Bishops that has responded to me in regard to my objections to the RDL said, "I knew we shouldn't have spent all that money." That doesn't give me much confidence.

I will strongly disagree with my brother, Father Deacon Lance. Canon 40 1 seems very clear. Further, the “Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” (Link) gives very objective and specific direction on how to apply the canons regarding Liturgy.

First, the Canon:

Then, from the Liturgical Instruction (these are relevant excerpts - the document itself is detailed and prints to 70+ pages):

I have already spoken to each point at length, so I will only restate that the reform is a clear violation of the directives from Rome regarding Liturgy. Those who support the Revised Divine Liturgy have refused to discuss these points.

Appeals continue. I have no doubt that they will be successful and Pope Benedict XVI will guarantee the right of the Ruthenian Catholic faithful to their own liturgical tradition. That is, complete and accurate translations of the official Slavonic editions for the Ruthenian recension that are in full compliance with the directives given in the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam [vatican.va]. To this date the Council of Hierarchs has not offered any explanation as to why the official Ruthenian Liturgy was so unacceptable it needed to be prohibited.

Regarding the use of gender neutral language (which really ought to be called 'exclusive language') in the example regarding the removal of the word "man" ("anthropos") from the Symbol of Faith I have already quoted from the 2002 directive by Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, then Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, in which he noted that the doctrinal problems with the removal of the term "men" from the Creed in "who for us men and our salvation" are "theologically grave".

ZENIT published a response of a Byzantine Deacon in regard to its prior article on Liturgical Norms.

http://www.zenit.org/article-23576?l=english

I would like to see his explanation as to how the RDL somehow conforms more to Eastern Orthodox usage. Is it the inclusive language, or, perhaps the formalized deletion of the petitions between the antiphons, and elsewhere in the Liturgy? Or, is it the formula "for us and our salvation", or the use of "always and everywhere" at the elevation of the Gifts? Pray, tell!

Dn. Robert

I personally think it's the actual use of the word orthodox in the Liturgy that tips the scale.....

We are way off topic here and all over the place! This thread is now closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator