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?

John,

I think we are descending into semantics, as restore was not the correct word for all five things I listed but I think you knew what I meant. I will amend my post as follows:

The Third Antiphon/Beatitudes are restored to the Pew Book, they were not provided in the Levkulic Edition except for Great Feasts of the Lord.

The Verses of the Prokimenon and Alleluiarion. Not sure what to say here. Indeed they were printed but often not taken. Not sure why or how this started as it was not an abbreviation mentioned or requested by Bishop Daniel when he requested certain dispensations from the 42 Liturgicon.

The Filioque is eliminated, no longer optional to take.

The Teplota is mandatory, no longer optional to not take.

The Ablutions are restored to their proper place, the dispensation to take them at "May our lips be filled ..." being allowed to lapse.

These things are in conformity with Orthodox usage and in the RDL.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

It may seem like semantics but really it is not.

I should have noted it further, but even comparing the official Liturgicon with a Pew Book is a bit of comparing apples and pears. [Sorry, oranges are already taken.] I don’t give credit to the RDL for restoring the Third Antiphon and the Beatitudes since in my former parish they were in use for the past 25 years (we simply pasted them in the book). For us and a number of other parishes the RDL shortened them. How could you possibly consider that to be a restoration?

Further, the Parma ‘green’ liturgy book from 1984 included a singe verse of all three antiphons. And I had a music edition of the Divine Liturgy used in about 30 parishes that contained the full text of the Liturgy (nothing omitted), including the traditional three verses of the three antiphons, and the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes.

The point is that when we speak of restoration we must always speak at the level of official books normative to the Recension.

The fact that the removal of the filioque and use of the teplota are mandatory does not mean they have been restored, for the option was always there. The rubric for the ablutions is the same in the 1942/1964 and the RDL so how can you claim the RDL restores them? Things already in the Liturgicon cannot be considered restored (see the example of the ‘restoration’ of the seven books in the OT). A directive to take them might be successful but it would be the directive to follow the Liturgicon that should be credited rather than the Liturgicion itself.

I don’t recommend mandates but the point is that a mandate to take them would not have required a single book to be reprinted or, in the case of the RDL, revised. And even directives don’t always work (but I’m glad to know all of the priests in Pittsburgh are in full conformance with the directives on the not using pre-cut prosphora, have restored teplota and have moved the ablutions to the correct place!).

Now, please go back to the original post, and re-read the link. Tell me what the RDL Liturgicon actually restores that the 1942 and/or the 1964 did not include. Anything that was already in the 1942 or 1964 cannot be called a restoration. This is so very important because some of the RDL supporters are claiming such things and they are false (see the apples and oranges example in my previous thread).

John

Praise God!

Well the actual words of the original post are about being in conformity with Orthodox usage, it says nothing about restoration. The Filioque and the Teplota were in the 64 Liturgicon but were optional at the bishop's, not the priest's, discretion. Which meant the Filioque was taken and the Teplota was not taken. The options were removed in the RDL bringing us into conformity with Orthodox usage in these two areas.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

You are confusing a Liturgicon with a liturgical directive. The 1942 standard is what restored them to the Liturgy, and the 1964 was a faithful translation. A liturgical directive with the 1964 would have accomplished a full and correct celebration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy. You can't give credit to the Revision for something it really didn't do. Please go and see my post on the seven books.

John

To be totally fair to the antebellum-RDL days, the Pew book did have, page 11 top: "If it is custom in a parish to use the THIRD ANTIPHON it is sung now."

It is true, as stated, that they were not provided, but they could be taken and we did (as the Beatitudes). And that situation, though it would have been nice to have it all in the book, was eminently more workable and expressive than the present stifling situation that by ukase has created a monopoly on what can be sung.

Heavens, Father Deacon, you have called to my attention an interesting cross-cultural phenomenon: up until now I don't remember the Rusyns using an Ukase! Creeping russification, that's what it is!

Fr. Serge

Indeed Father, you've got it. Images of imperialist, tsarist Russia having become swept up in the torrent of my own rhetoric, I felt the irony of us "little" folks aspiring to imitate the "great" ones -- in the wrong things -- to poignant to let pass.