www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL based on Slavonic?

As is the case with many of the Administrator and Stuarts' responses, there are many assumptions made. I made no mention of doctrinal errors or theological issues; I only spoke of my experiences with a very limited number of people who are vocal in opposing the translation and the fact that many accept it. If there are issues the faithful need to be educated as to the problem, not preached at from a soap box or degraded because someone made an assumption on what has been said.

Erie,

You are correct that there are assumptions made about why you posted what you did. In this RDL forum there is an incredible amount of scholarly evidence to demonstrate the doctrinal and other problems with the RDL, ranging from the appropriate evidence from the Vatican directives themselves (which have been ignored and openly rejected) as well as solid liturgical scholarship from both East and West (including a condemnation of the RDL by Father Robert Taft, S.J., who is one of the leading Byzantine Liturgical scholars in the world). So, yes, when you ignore all this and reduce the discussion to "the people I know like it" it is reasonable to assume that the doctrinal and other issues are of no importance to you.

I am very glad that you acknowledge your experience is limited. You are obviously someone who loves Christ and the Church - if you did not you would not be posting here. I recommend that you spend some time reading and learning about the problems of the RDL. Or just engage in a good study of Liturgy using solid source material and you will find yourself asking the very same questions asked here. Authentic Liturgy is good Liturgy, and is the path to a vibrant Church. Our Ruthenian Liturgy (full and uncut in a theologically correct translation) has been shown to fill parishes. The question as to why it is prohibited has been asked numerous times and those who support the RDL have refused to answer.

John

Yes, that is reasonable. Although there are numerous accounts of especially the old railing against the RDL (they just do it amongst themselves and not on the internet). They don't think as much about the doctrinal problems. For them they compare the Liturgy they remember when they were young (when the churches were full) to the the RDL (with churches dwindling). As one priest put it, all their songs have been taken away, of course they are angry and hurt. People don't get over such things, which is why any change needs to be accomplished with pastoral gentleness.

I noted this elsewhere, but will do so again a bit differently. One Ruthenian priest recently commented on the study text that is currently being worked on. He went through it line by line. He said that if Archbishop Basil abandoned the RDL and implemented the study text (or something like it, one that was truly a 1964 with corrections to make it literal to the 1942 official edition), and went back to the old music he would be hailed as a hero. While the study text is far from perfect and only a work in progress, I believe that this priest was correct. The Byzantine Liturgy works and works well in the 'received' form!

Let's continue to pray for the Ruthenian bishops!

I have studied the Divine Liturgy and other liturgy as well. The majority of my focus in undergrad was on Liturgy. The phenomenon with the RDL is not uncommon in other eparchies.

For instance, I just moved to Buffalo and attended at UGCC parish in the northtowns. The English translation used there, was much the same as the RDL but predated it by a good 20 years, I would guess. I guess the Ruthenian Church was not as inventive as we think.

You might consider that there is a large difference between what is allowed and what is mandated. The Ruthenians are the first to prohibit the celebration of the normative Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have specifically promulgated the liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension while the Ruthenians have rejected them. The Ukrainians have asked their pastors to raise the celebrations in the local parishes to the official standard. The Ruthenians have prohibited the official standard given them by Rome. There are also about 5 or 6 commonly used translations in the UGCC here in America, including our 1964. Huge difference.

But you are right, the Ruthenians aren't the first to experiment with copying some of the Latin Novus Ordo things in Liturgy. They are just the first to mandate them, and to openly reject the Vatican's call to unity in Liturgy among Greek Catholics and Orthodox. You might consider that Pope Benedict XVI has blessed and encouraged unrestricted use of the older form of the Latin Mass (the John XXII Missal). Ruthenians have prohibited the celebration of the official form of their own Liturgy!

The issues with the RDL are more than assumptions and are well-documented in various posts on this forum.

But those are important points that, again, have been discussed and well documented.



My judgment, based on my experience, is that the soap-box preaching designation would better go to RDL framers and supporters. Vocal? Yes, this forum does provide a much need voice to those of us who feel obligated or moved to raise cautions, objections, or ask legitimate questions.

I don't see anyone being degraded by substantive objections to the RDL. I don't think that most of the people and perhaps even the clergy have been adequately informed of the pro's and con's. Official channels of information on the RDL have only noted the pro's, the RDL is considered a done deal, and the voicing of con's is not appreciated. Asking questions or noting problems is typically met with "What do you expect to accomplish (the RDL is here to stay)?" without, incredibly, further inquiry on the details that could very well demonstrate that there are problems. We may be wrong but there is hardly a response of substantive dialogue and debate to show that's the case.

The official line when problems are noted is something like this (putting it bluntly): This has been studied for 12 years by better than the likes of you. Fidelity is required, so give it a try, and don't let the door hit you in the --- as you go.

The crux of the matter is most people in the Metropolia have never been catechized into the Liturgy, and thus they have not been given the proper tools by which to judge the liturgy that they have. In this, the bishops have, for more than half a century, been seriously remiss in their responsibilities. As a result, the people know that something is wrong, but have no way of discerning or enunciating what it is. Since the RDL was promulgated, the authorities of the Metropolia have gone out of their way to deflect all questions and comments, dismissing valid criticisms as carping, as mindless nostalgia, and--worst of all, from their perspective--"disobedience".

When the people see those who ought to be their natural leaders browbeaten into silence or submission by overbearing clerics, who is to blame them if they just sit back and defer to their ecclesiastical masters?

"Besides, we've already paid for the books, and we are going to use them until they fall apart".

It's worse than that. The bishops promulgated rubrics that were invented by a commission or copied from the Roman Catholics. They rejected the explicit directives from Rome. Nor it is a "new" translation. Father David Petras has written here that they purposely made changes to "improve" the liturgy.

Avant garde theology. 30 years after the idea was considered and rejected. If you read through the RDL texts it reads as if the Divine Liturgy were set in the 1970s. The Liturgy is no longer timeless but 1970s modern. We can and should do better.

The problem is politics. The bishops have the authority to rescind the RDL and replace it with something better. The promoters of the RDL are just too powerful.

The supporters of the RDL are the ones are the ones who degrade others. Ask a serious question. The response will never be serious. It will immediately be accusatory. The commission has worked hard, you see, and your asking questions is a personal attack. You'll never get an answer.

I wish I had taped Kachuba's speech about loyalty. When RDL was promulgated the clergy was given a loyalty speech. Sweet but almost threatening.

I don't understand the politics. Our liturgy is so beautiful when done right. I understand that earlier Ruthenian bishops wanted to restore the liturgy. They couldn't agree about it so they asked Rome to do the research and issue official texts. Then in 1942 they issued the official texts. Since then every generation of bishops has somehow managed to prohibit the restoration of liturgy Rome commanded. Only some parishes manages to do it right but they were always ridiculed by the latinizers. But the CDs I have from Uzhorod have the full liturgy and it is so beautiful.

So why do all the bishops hate the Ruthenian Liturgy? Don't they realize that the people want the real liturgy? What else can we do to get the bishops to follow what Rome told them to do?

My church was stolen. I want it back!

What my daughter said, after hearing that "Jesus is good and loves us all", was "My Church just broke up with me".

Before thinking of rescinding it, I wonder if it was a lawful promulgation in the first place. As I understand it, the approval for the RDL from the Oriental Congregation came out before the RDL was completed and not too long before Liturgiam Authenticam was published (hmmmm...). How can what is not finalized be approved by anyone for he could not know what he was approving? Finally,I just don't see how any liturgy with a Creed that does not comport with that of an Ecumenical Council (or did not have the explicit approval of the Roman Pontiff himself) could lawfully be promulgated by any Bishop who claims to be in union with Rome. Harsh? Perhaps, but show me those aren't the facts. I went to law school in the "show-me" state and "them is the facts as I see them."