www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology BCC's RDL and UGCC: Liturgical Differences

Dear All,

Some time ago I mentioned some issues I was thinking about in terms of the BCC's RDL within the context of returning to an eastern parish. Fr. Serge mentioned in that thread that the UGCC was a safe alternative to the BCC RDL.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt.../Returning%20Parish%20Members#Post309957

I have in front of me the revision of the DL used at the Ukrainian churches in my area. It was published by the diocese of St. Josaphat in Parma in 1996. One of the issues surrounding the RDL is the inclusive language, particularly in the Creed. As I look at the Ukrainian version it does the same thing as the BCC RDL. It says "for us and for our salvation", omitting the word men. In the Hymn to the Only Begotten Son of God it says "without change you became human". At the end of the liturgy it says "…will have mercy on us and save us for he is a good, kind and loving God".

One other thing I have noticed is that at St. Michael's in Lyndora, PA and at St. Mary's, in Ford City, PA, both Ukrainian parishes, I have seen altar girls on more than one occasion.

I'm not at all looking to stir controversy here. I'm just wondering why all the negative focus is on the BCC RDL when it appears to me that the Ukrainian Church has several of the same issues. Did the diocese of St. Josaphat actually promulgate a form of revised liturgy over a decade before the BCC promulgated its RDL, or am I missing something?

When I was in St. Michaels UGCC in New Haven I also noticed this difference. I thought that it may have been the result of latinization from years back.

??? The Eparchy of Stamford (including Connecticut) and all others using English in the Liturgy rely primarily on the 1988 Synodal English liturgikon, which does not have the changes noted above (the Synodal text retains "men" in the Creed, "mankind" in the dismissal, and "became man" in the O Monogenes).

The Eparchy of St. Josaphat in Parma is the only Eparchy to promulgate and use this unique translation, and even in that Eparchy there is (obviously) no prohibition to use materials promulgated by the Synod, and their bookstore even sells the other translation which is included in the Anthology.

Patriarch Lubomyr made it clear when he blessed the publication of the Anthology in 2005 or so (nearly a decade after the Parma translation) that if anything he desired more fidelity and consistency in using the available English Synodal liturgical translations. I am not sure now he or the Synod would approve this kind of a one-off translation without reservations (he was not the Patriarch when this was published). My bishop came out of the Eparchy of St. Josaphat and he has made it clear he wants us to use the Synodal texts, whether Ukrainian or English.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Hang around a while longer. You are probably going to see a lot more changes in the UGCC Liturgy, beginning with the Eparchy of Parma!

I've been hanging around a very long time, and haven't changed (or been asked to) in 22 years. I am much more confident in Patriarch Lubomyr's words and direction than the implied uncertainty; I doubt greatly that His Beatitude would have spearheaded such an effort with personal interest and involvement as the Anthology in cost and resources if some entirely different translation were on the horizon. It is just now getting into many cantor's hands.

Not if some priests I know, who are VERY influential in these matters, have their way. Besides, I have already begun to see changes implemented in a few parishes I've visited.

This is all unsubstantiated .

Please provide us with more information

Very sad.

Until the Synod promulgates, this is nothing more than hearsay. As we know, any priest can choose not to follow the rules.

In the parishes I assist at we have actually become more faithful to the Ordo in recent times, even to the point of opening and closing the doors at the appropriate times.

Most clergy would not be in favor of such changes, especially considering many parishes are only in the beginning of taking English liturgies and will most certainly not want to change translation or music.

Deletion of prayers (at Liturgies, Vespers, Matins, Compline, etc.), movement of prayers around, inclusive language bordering on ridiculosity (e.g. '...for our fathers and brothers and mothers and sisters...etc.'), altar girls, deacons performing the proskomedia...these are a few things that come to mind.
...all because 'that's not how St. John Chrysostom celebrated the Liturgy'. At least, that's how it was explained to me by some priests.

I see what you're saying. I'm just saying that it is happening in the parishes.

As I said, anyone can break the rules. "Altar girls" are not allowed by the particular law for the UGCC in the US. But Latins and even Orthodox have had vested females so unfortunately this abuse is not the sole property of any one particular Church. I don't think we need to rehash all of that.
http://www.stnina.org/files/images/altar-girl_0.jpg

Thankfully in the one particular church that this happened the Bishops responded by saying the practice was absolutely forbidden:

http://www.stnina.org/journal/onl/feat/AltarServers

Hopefully the same has happened in the instances pointed to in the thread. Otherwise I would think people would get the idea that it is approved, or at least tacitly so.

What a deeply troubling website. It seems that ultra-feminism is fast spreading into Orthodoxy. I hope that the Orthodox bishops will crack down on this nonsense.

Take solace in the response of the bishops, and recognize the site represents a small activist group. I have never met anyone in real life who supports their agenda.