www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy WHY THE SILENCE?

Something of interest:
http://www.paulinesafrica.org/catalogue2/new_in_liturgy_of_hours.html

An new volume of the Roman Rite Liturgy of the Hours has been completed for the English-speaking nations of Africa. Of particualr note:

"MAIN FEATURES
Several features make this new edition of The Liturgy of the Hours unique and outstanding:

The Revised Grail Psalter

It is the desire of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the Revised Grail Psalter should be the official translation of the Psalms to be used in all the liturgical texts (Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, Sacraments, etc.). This translation, approved for use in the Liturgy, is faithful to the Hebrew text, and it
has been recommended by musicians for its musicality, as it can easily be sung, chanted or recited. At the same time, it is already “somehow familiar” to those who pray The Liturgy of the Hours. The Old Testament Canticles (prayed at Morning Prayer) have also been revised.

Biblical Texts

The biblical texts (except the Psalms and Morning Prayer Canticles) are taken from the New American Bible (The African Bible) of the USCCB (United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops).

Liturgical Texts

The liturgical texts are taken from The Liturgy of the Hours of the ICEL (International Commission for English in the Liturgy) edition."

Now I don't know what corrections were made to the Revised Grail Psalter or NAB (I presume the RNAB) were made but I am willing to bet a certain amount of horizontal inclusive language made it through just as it did for the CCCB's USCCB's new Lectionaries.

Given that Rome keeps giving its approbation to texts that don't rigidly adhere to the oft cited Liturgium Authenticam what use is it to appeal to this document which appears to be a dead letter? I mean if Rome won't enforce LA on the Latin Church what hope is there it will enforce it on an Eastern Church?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Except that the Grail translations are probably the least felicitous I have ever read. Did the translators realize they were doing poetry? By the way, the fact that it is "faithful to the Hebrew text" is precisely why we, as Eastern Christians, cannot and should not use it. We should rely upon the Septuagint Greek translation, and derivations thereof.

Interesting points.

Rome has approved the Revised Amended Revised New American Bible for use in the Latin Rite Lectionary, but has denied a blessing for the USCCB to publish a full Bible version with this text. I would think that means the issue is not yet settled, but that in the meantime Rome will continue to approve other publications using this and other texts with past approvals. I have personally communicated with several Latin bishops in this past year, with each assuring me that for the Latin Rite any new translations would fully adhere to Liturgiam Authenticam, so I doubt it is a dead letter. There are many opponents of LA and of literally accurate translations in the Church, so the struggle will continue.

Will Rome ever enforce LA on the Eastern Churches? If we keep asking them to eventually they will, if nothing else to keep us quiet. If not we can worship in parishes that use translations that adhere to LA.

Among other things the RDL texts have doctrinal problems. They need to be corrected.

--

The publication Father Deacon references says it uses the Revised Grail Psalter. I find this very interesting since the Vatican has not given approval to it yet. Conception Abby says that it has not yet been granted formal approval by the Vatican (it is expected later this year). So I wonder how this publication could already be using it?

I am excitedly looking forward to seeing the Revised Grail Psalter. The original Grail was very singable but not overly literal. What I've seen of the Revised Grail Psalter suggests it might be as literal as, for example, the RSV. But no one will know until the Vatican is done with it. Will the Vatican make thousands of changes like in the RAR-NAB Lectionary? Or will they make no changes at all like in the RSV-CE2 Lectionary? Several friends of mine have copies of the "working draft" of the RGP that went to Rome, but none have given in to my begging to send me a copy!

In today's news: 8 years after Liturgiam Authenticam, more accurate liturgical translations in sight [catholicculture.org]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what possible comparison can there be between this issue of the RDL and the heresy that St. Maximos battled? Can you please lay out for us exactly what is the heresy that is being promulgated by the Ruthenian Church that her laity and clergy are supposed to reject?

Blessings

Dear sister Elizabeth,

Surely, your priest is a saint in God's eyes. And so are you for following his example in holy obedience. I believe we are to follow are bishop in all things except heresy.

Blessings

We're pretty much there, I would say.

Dear Marduk,

While I firmly believe that my priest is a saint (I see evidence of his holiness all the time, I am not quite there yet and I find his example inspirational, but frustrating.

Elizabeth

While the bishops have a charism to pass down the Tradition and teach true doctrine, the faithful have a responsibility and obligation to protect the Tradition from any who would distort it. Regardless of their status and standing.

We're pretty much there, I would say.

Stuart, please explain. We are pretty much where? Heresy?
If so, what is heretical about the Divine Liturgy as celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church?

All of the changes of the RDL may not have been ideal, but besides the questionable points which have been raised, there are positive things documented over the past couple of years which are improvements. This has been ongoing for the past 20 centuries and will undoubtedly continue as long until the Kingdom of God is completely established here on earth.

Fr Deacon Paul

Name a few.

1. Recommendation to stand during consecration
2. Larger variety of tones for the hymns (especially the Lord's Prayer)
3. Full documentation of a deacon as a con-celebrant (properly including deacon parts...not listing them as priest's parts)
4. Elimination of the filioque
5. Allowing full understanding (by the lay participants)of former "secret" prayers of the priest instead of covering them with singing.
6. More complete documentation of troparia
7. Universal inclusion of the third antiphon

These are just from the top of my head. Some of the above may be negative to some people, but positive by others.


You avoided my question......

Your brother in Christ,
Fr Deacon Paul

Could have been penciled into the red books


Could have been handled just by giving cantors the music--better and singable music, too. At Epiphany, we had already begun singing Otce Nas, the Creed and other hymns in a variety of tones. No drastic overhaul was required. Now, of course, nobody sings at all. Big improvement.


Could have been written into the book without any change in the text of the Liturgy.


Just where have you been living? I joined in 1995, and it was already gone. But if you wanted it out of the Red Books, then get a black magic marker, don't try your hand at wholesale redaction.


While I am inclined to favor this kind of change, I think it was badly implemented, and should not have been made mandatory. But again, why the need to rewrite the entire Liturgy? The prayers were already in the priests' books (albeit most of them were reading at the speed of light to actually finish the prayers in the time allotted). Also, given the sacrosanct "70-minute rule", nothing is for free: reading the prayers led to the elimination of a lot of other things.


You'll have to explain that, since the Troparia and Kontakia are among the worst aspects of the RDL--both badly translated (when not hopelessly paraphrased) and set to utterly unsingable music.


Third antiphon was in the Red Book. All you needed to do was tell people to do it.

So, at the end of the day, nothing you have posited as beneficial could not have been accomplished by going through the Red Book with a sharp pencil. In the course of an afternoon, everything that needed to be done could have been done, and with a lot less damage to the life of the Church. Because, let me tell you, the 1965 translation, with all its flaws, was greatly superior to the work over which the Intereparchial Liturgical Translation Commission labored for so long. But that's committee work for you.


I'm being charitable. There are numerous elements of the RDL that walk right up to the line of heterodoxy, and a few that in my opinion cross over (certain elements of the Creed and the Anaphora come to mind). Overall, however, the effect of the whole is corrosive to the Tradition and to the faith the Tradition encapsulates. The RDL is merely Elkoism with a human face, as explicit an example of "latinization of the mind" as one could ever hope to find. It also strikes me as merely another effort at setting the Ruthenian Church aside as some sort of "Third Way", putting distance between itself and the Latin Church on the one hand, and the Orthodox Churches on the other. This is, incidentally, contrary to the express desires of the Holy See.

As such, I believe it should have been opposed by the clergy as well as the faithful (many of whom, such as yours truly, have simply voted with their feet). Obedience has its limits. Just because a bishop says "Hop, frog!", there is no reason for everyone to say "How high?" At the very least, the bishops owed the faithful both an explanation of what they were doing, and an opportunity to respond. But no input was sought at all. Repeating the same error as the Latin Church of forty-odd years ago, they imposed change by fiat and expected everyone to fall into line "Because we said so, that's why".

After all the mismanagement to which the Ruthenian Church has been subjected by its bishops since the dawn of the twentieth century, why, exactly, should they have expected the faithful to act as though this was still the Old Country, where they were the aristocrats and we were the serfs?

Seems like, the Ruthenian Church has NEVER done anything right from the moment of its existence.

These issues have been hashed over so many times that I really see nothing constructive by continuing. We just have to agree to disagree and trust the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and its faithful.

I and many others aren't going shopping for a new church but will continue to serve during our time here on earth.

You sweep us away like a dream,
like grass which springs up in the morning,
In the morning it springs up and flowers;
by evening it withers and fades.

Christ is among us,
Fr Deacon Paul

Please elaborate upon this statement:

"We're pretty much there, I would say."

plus this statement:

"There are numerous elements of the RDL that walk right up to the line of heterodoxy, and a few that in my opinion cross over (certain elements of the Creed and the Anaphora come to mind)."



Thanks,
Jonathan

History speaks for itself. One ought to listen to it.

You should remember, though, that I chose to join the Ruthenian Church, being one of the few adult catechumens to be baptized into it without any prior relationship (e.g., marriage), so I must have seen something good there. In fact, it is the cataclysmic collapse of the Church in the last few years, to say nothing of the utter demoralization of the Eparchy of Passaic under the previous administration, that convinced me the spiritual atmosphere was no longer healthy. I've seen too many good people hounded out, too many time servers promoted.