www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Does the RDL conform more to Orthodox usage?

"Finally, the changes were not made to make our liturgy 'more like the Roman Mass,' but rather less like it and more like our authentic tradition. Just as the Roman tradition has 'Liturgiam Authenticam,' the Byzantine tradition has 'Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.' One of the principles set forth in that document is that when our practices deviate from those of our Orthodox brothers, then we should conform to the Orthodox tradition. This is to witness to the fullness of faith found within the Catholic tradition."
http://www.zenit.org/article-23576?l=english


Fr. Deacon Robert,

With all of the focus on what is not liked about the RDL it is often forgotten that:

The Third Antiphon/Beatitudes are restored.
The Verses of the Prokimenon and Alleluiarion are restored.
The Filioque is eliminated.
The Teplota is restored.
The Ablutions are restored to their proper place.

All things that do conform us more to Orthodox usage.

While, I would acknowledge that eliminating the Little Litanies is unique to us and ACROD, the elimination of the Litanies of the Catechumens and Faithful as well as the First Aitesis are common enough among the Orthodox that our doing so is not beyond the pale.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr.Deacon,

I have shown the text of the RDL to a few Eastern Orthodox priests in my area.
The points which I have brought up, such as the change in the Creed, the inclusive language, and the "always and everywhere" at the elevation of the Gifts, are the biggest irritants to them (and to me). One retired OCA priest defends their use of Elizabethan English as a means of having a "sacral" language, i.e., a language of the official prayer of the Church which is not the language spoken in the street. I like that attitude.

Dn. Robert

Fr. Deacon Robert,

I think we forget that Aramaic and Koine Greek were languages spoken in the street.

Fr. Deacon Lance

An example in the OCA at the elevation: "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee, in behalf of all and for all"

A special abridged liturgicon (aka the RDL) was not needed to accomplish this; all this and more was possible and available in the 1965 liturgicon.

I'm beginning to have doubts about the precision of the ablution inferences that have been made (here and elsewhere). The Ordo specifies that for two deacons, the second does the ablution immediately after transference of the holy cup and diskos to the proskomedia table, reference [patronagechurch.com] §162, 163.

Father Deacon Lance,

The Revised Divine Liturgy restores none of the items you listed. They can all be found in the 1964 edition (commonly known as the “Red Book”).

• On pages 19 and 20 you can find the Third Antiphon. It is true that a typo puts the text of the Third Antiphon in the wrong place (before the doxology on page 19) but at the top of page 20 you will find the rubric directing the Third Antiphon or the Beatitudes.
• On page 22 you will find the reference to the “Prokimen”. Also on page 22 you will find the rubric for the “Alleluia (with verses)”. (Specific verses are not included in the Liturgicon.)
• On page 22 the Filioque is in parenthesis indicating it is optional.
• On page 41 you will find the rubrics for the teplota.
• On page 45 you will find the rubric for the ablutions. It directs the deacon to perform the ablutions just after the Ambon Prayer.

So we can see quite clearly that all of the items on your list were already present in the 1964 edition of the Liturgicon. The RDL most definitely does not restore any of the practices you list. They were already there. No other Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction prohibits the Little Litanies or mandates the reduction of the Litany for the Catechumens, or prohibits the petitions associated with the Litanies for the Faithful. There are parishes that do take them. There is a difference between making a prayer optional and prohibiting a prayer by removing it from the book!

I’ve noted earlier that the standard Pew Book used in most of our parishes prior to the RDL mandate was the edition prepared by Msgr. Levkulic. It contained the traditional three verses of the First and Second Antiphons. My former parish had a “paste-in” with the Third Antiphon (with the traditional three verses) and the Beatitudes that date back to the early 1980s (a number of other parishes also had similar “paste-ins”). The Levkulic Pew Book also provided the verses of the Prokimenon and the Alleluia, so they have been there for the taking.

A reprint of the Liturgicons (Chrysostom and Basil) could have corrected a few translation and grammatical errors and the typos. A reprint of the Levkulic Pew Book could have restored what was missing and corrected some errors. A new music book could also have been prepared, respecting what was memorized. This could easily have been accomplished in a way that offended no one. There was no need whatsoever to reform the Divine Liturgy, to reject the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam, or to force new texts and music upon a people that had already memorized text and music that were perfectly acceptable. Getting the clergy to observe the rubrics accurately is a different question. I have already suggested that the answer to that question is in education, example and encouragement.

I could comment on the Zenit article but for now will only state that the Byzantine deacon who provided information provided to Zenit provided inaccurate information. There is nothing in the RDL (that is not already possible with the 1964) that brings us into closer practice with the Orthodox. That claim has been made here by some supporters and has been clearly shown to be false.

John

Fr. Deacon,

I would agree, but that does not detract from the fact that the RDL does contain elements that bring us into conformity with the Orthodox usage.

As to the ablution, the same Ordo specifies that with one deacon serving, the deacon consumes the Holy Gifts after the Ambon Prayer and Prayer for Consuming the Holy Gifts. With two deacons serving, the second deacon immediately consumes because he is not needed on the Ambon for the Litany of Thanksgiving or the "Let us pray" for the Ambon Prayer. Notice that the Prayer for Consuming the Holy Gifts is movable coming immediately after the transfer of the Holy Gifts to the Prothesis when two deacons are serving, after the Ambon Prayer if one deacon is serving, and either not at all or after the dismissal if only a priest is serving, because the Ordo does not mention the prayer in this situation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

John,

I am aware they appear in the 65 Liturgicon. They were however not widely practiced. Some were forbidden or mandated as the hierach saw fit and the Ordo and 65 Liturgicon allowed this. Here I am refering to the Filioque (mandated), Teplota (forbidden) and Ablutions (mandated taken during May Our lips be filled).

The RDL makes it clear the Filioque is deleted, the Teplota taken and the Ablutions taken as originally intended. I think it is completely honest to say elements of the RDL are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Gentlemen:

I am not at all sure what this is. (In the back of my mind I'm thinking it is the zeon, i.e. hot water, but I've never heard this word 'Teplota' before.) Pardon my ignorance.

Fr David Straut

Fr. David,

You got it. Teplota is the Slavonic term for Zeon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

Yes, I'm aware of this and it goes to my point. How can it be an abuse or latinization to consume at a time that is preferred as evidenced when there are two deacons? The second deacon is not directed to wait for the later time -- that is just a matter of necessity/practicality to keep things moving when there's only one deacon.

I'm all for following the Ordo and the rubrics of the Služebnik (accurately rendered in the 1965 liturgicon as a matter of translation). At this point the RDL is a hodgepodge of the one and two deacon rubrics from the Ordo and Recension Služebnik rubrics, with some other stuff added that isn't in either, and yet other rubrics in the Recension omitted.

I had thought that our mandate was to follow and preserve our heritage, and that our Recension did that and insured an authentic rite, one that therefore was as "Orthodox" as any of the multitude of legitimate variations found among Orthodox Churches. If we don't preserve our rite by observing it, who is expected to do it for us -- the Greeks, Russians, Melkites...? Rather, they are properly attending to their own, and we are left to continued delays and diversions.

Father Deacon Lance,

The fact that some of the rubrics you listed were not followed correctly was not the fault of the 1942 or 1964 Liturgicons. It was the fault of formation. That these rubrics are retained in the 2007 Revised Liturgicon in no way restores them. The very same priests who did not use teplota still do not use teplota. The very same priests who did the ablutions during “May our lips be filled” still do the ablutions at that time during the Liturgy. And – surprise – almost all of the clergy still use pre-cut particles! There is no way anyone can honestly state that the RDL restores these practices. It does not take a Revised Liturgcion to get priests to take what is already in the Liturgicon. It takes proper formation and patience. Education, example, and encouragement are the way forward.

As I have stated numerous times, there was absolutely no need to revise the Divine Liturgy to restore correct praxis on the elements you listed. A reprint of the Levkulic Pew Book could easily have added the missing litanies and the Third Antiphons and Beatitudes, as well as remove the filioque. The verses to the Prokimeny and Alleluia were already there. The 1964 Liturgicon already had correct rubrics on the teplota and the ablutions. It should be clear to all that there was no need to revise the Liturgy to restore these elements.

You wrote: “I think it is completely honest to say elements of the RDL are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.”

Of what use is this statement? Again, which elements of the RDL move us into conformity with Orthodox usage where the 1964 does not? Why was it not possible to restore these elements with proper formation with the 1964 Liturgicion? It is equally correct to state about these very same elements: ”I think it is completely honest to say elements of the 1964 are intended to move us into conformity with Orthodox usage.” And such a statement would actually mean something since most see the 1964 as replacing the Lvov Liturgicon which was highly abbreviated.

The Revised Divine Liturgy of 2007 needs to be rescinded. What is needed is a reprint of the 1964 with only the necessary corrections to make it an accurate translation of the 1942 official Ruthenian Slavonic edition. The 2007 RDL is not a complete and faithful translation of the 1942. The 2007 RDL violates both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgicam Authenticam.

John

Fr. Deacon,

I never thought it a big deal myself, but Fr. Serge feels it is a major Latinization. In anycase it does conform to Orthodox usage.

As to your second question I think an American Byzantine usage related to but not exactly the same as the Ruthenian Recension has been and is still evolving. The RDL is a stage in that evolution. That is the way of things as I see it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

John,

I am not saying (and did not say) that the RDL was needed to do these things, but the fact remains the RDL does contain these elements. One difference, however, is the 64 Liturgicon was printed with no intention of it ever being used as it was by the hierarchs involved. The hierarchs involved with the 06 Liturgicon actually want to see some conformity with Orthodox usage. Ultimately, as you say, each priest ultimately does as he wishes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I was under the impression that every priest in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy is now under the threat of pension loss if they did not follow the RDL to the letter. How are varations allowed?

How is there conformity with Orthodox usage when inclusive language is used?

The hierarchs want conformity with the Orthodox? How about the churches that still don't have icon screens? They should be installed with diocese money if the parish can't afford it.

A new liturgy is mandated, but the priest can use pre cut particles instead of performing a proper proskomedia?

Vespergy instead of Saturday Vespers?

Please! The RDL has done nothing to even pretend to conform to Orthodoxy.