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

Dear brother StuartK,

I have yet to see any proof that the RDL is "heretical" or "heterodox" to the point that you could compare it to the action of St. Maximos when he opposed monothelitism.

Change is often uncomfortable for a lot of people - that's a given - but I would still like to know what changes are prescribed in the RDL that goes against the Eastern Byzantine doctrinal Faith

Blessings

The numbered points are Deacon Paul’s. My responses to each follow the “>>”.

1. Recommendation to stand during consecration

>> This is not even mentioned in the liturgicon (nor should it be). Pew Books are a different thing, but even here it was not necessary to forcibly change texts, rubrics and music to direct the people to stand during the anaphora.

2. Larger variety of tones for the hymns (especially the Lord's Prayer)

>> The music, per say, is a separate category. It was certainly not necessary to revise the Liturgy to offer parishes additional settings of 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)

>>The 1964 translation does not list the deacon’s parts as the priest’s parts. The RDL, on the other hand, seems to demote the deacon as not being a concelebrant with rubrics assigning texts to “Celebrant, Concelebrant and Deacon”. If the deacon is truly a celebrant, then the RDL says he can proclaim: "Take, eat; this is my body" and "Drink of this all of you this is my blood" for it assigns these words not to the priest but to a "Celebrant".

4. Elimination of the filioque

>>The 1964 translation had the filioque in parenthesis and a note in the forward that it may be omitted at the discretion of the local ordinary. In a mission parish I helped start in the middle 1980s it was never used. It was officially dropped in several eparchies in the 1990s. Certainly no revision to the Divine Liturgy was necessary to drop it. The logical way was to omit it the next time the books were reprinted.

5. Allowing full understanding (by the lay participants) of former "secret" prayers of the priest instead of covering them with singing.

>>These prayers are not for our education by hearing but for our salvation by praying. Hearing parts of them at every Divine Liturgy (as mandated) offers no one full understanding of the great Mystery of the Eucharist. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) himself says in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” that the praying of the Anaphora “is really more then speech but Actio in the highest sense of the word” (p. 172). He also says that “to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon have to be said out loud.” That “liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis” (because of the custom of saying it out loud). He continues with: “However, as far I can see… the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence… became the norm.” “Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and Spirit-filled act of prayer.” (pp. 214-215.)

There is absolutely no reason to mandate the praying of the priest’s ‘quiet prayers’ aloud. As I have noted many times, top Roman Catholics (including the pope) say this custom did not and does not enhance the Roman Catholic Mass. My suggestion that the way forward here was with liberty for the priest to pray these prayers quietly or aloud as the Spirit leads still remains the best. I won’t point out again too strongly that the RDL does not even offer the liberty I suggest as it prohibits some prayers from being taken aloud! The ones mandated to be taken aloud were merely chosen by the liturgical commission without any justification or reason being given.

6. More complete documentation of troparia

>> It was not necessary to revise the Liturgy or to translate it in a style that violates Vatican Directives (both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam) to better document troparia!

7. Universal inclusion of the third antiphon

>> The RDL does not accomplish this. Look at the 1964 Liturgicon page 19. The Third Antiphon has been in the Liturgicon for over 40 years. In 1984 the parish I attended then 'pasted in' the entire Third Antiphon into the Levkulic book (together with expanded versions of the Typical Psalms and the Beatitudes) and sang ever since (until the praying the antiphons past one verse was forbidden). The RDL was not necessary to accomplish this.

--

Deacon Paul asked: Is there anything heretical about the RDL?

Not heretical but certainly doctrinally problematic. In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired) called the removal of the term “anthropos” (“men”) from the Creed in the phrase “who for us men and our salvation” “theologically grave”. “Theologically grave” is not necessarily heresy (as I doubt the bishops meant it that way) but “theologically grave” is “theologically grave” and the texts should be fixed! Many of the other texts are simply less accurate than those provided in the 1964 Chrysostom and 1976 Basil Liturgicons.

There are other examples. In the 1976 Basil Liturgicon in the First Prayer of the Faithful we find: “...for it is You alone Who works all things in all” (a direct quote of 1 Cor 12:6). Somehow this becomes: “...for you alone empower all we do”, which is no longer a quote from the Holy Scriptures but a touchy-feely cute kind of thing that is wrong (the Slavonic is “vsja vo vsich” / “all in all”). But how wrong is wrong? Not heretical but certainly incorrect and poor doctrine. What justification was there for taking an acceptable translation and rendering it incorrect?

But we’ve discussed and documented well a number of problems with the RDL, and those who wish to find them can do so by browsing this forum.

I don’t know if I’d go as far as Deacon Paul’s sarcasm but the Ruthenian Church has made lots of mistakes. It seems that there continues to be (among bishops and some clergy) a continuing belief that our Ruthenian Way of Life (as documented in the Roman editions of our liturgical books) is so horrid and unacceptable that it cannot be allowed. The Divine Liturgy is a wonderful gift from the Savior. It has been fine tuned by the Spirit over two thousand years, and our Ruthenian recension is something wonderful we share with others. Why the bishops would prohibit it from being celebrated in the form we officially share with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and reject Rome’s clear directives is beyond explanation.

It is perfectly clear to anyone willing to read the Vatican directives that the Ruthenian bishops have rejected the directives from Rome. Pope John Paul directed that they restore “full fidelity” first and only then work with the Orthodox to make alterations. He noted that it is a “delicate task that must be executed with care so as not to disturb souls”. And what have the bishops done? Just the opposite. They have copied Western forms and not just disturbed souls but greatly harmed them.

To suggest that the Melkites or Ukrainians or the Roman Catholics are a “new church” is problematic. Any Catholic has the right and freedom to find a parish he feels comfortable in. We are called in our parishes to worship the Savior - not to preserve Ruthenian ethnicity. If there are those who are uncomfortable with the bishop’s Revised Divine Liturgy they have every right and reason to seek a different Catholic parish where the Liturgy is celebrated correctly.

Further, some did not leave willfully. A number of people were told to leave. Some were formally accused of disobedience for asking questions of the bishops. Others were escorted to the door and told not to return (we have had personal testimony on this forum of that).

Ultimately, the faithful have both a right and a responsibility to call the bishops to be obedient to Rome, and to our Ruthenian Church.

Which is why I said the overall effect of the RDL was corrosive to the Tradition. Small errors add up to big ones.

John,

I was responding to Stuart's question below; he give the impression that there was absolutely no redeeming quality at all with the new books; he challenged me to name them and I did. Both you and Stuart seemed to acknowledge that they are valid points, it's just that your preferences were that they be done differently. Taking the existing books and doing cut & paste to each book consistently in every parish is a foolish solution. Remember the people in the pews had the green paperback books, AND there were the blue/brown books, AND some cantors had the black vinyl three-ring binder, AND there was the excellent weekly sheet which you published. When you went from parish to parish you didn't know what to follow.

Though what we have is less than ideal...its better than the hodgepodge that we had before. I'm not speaking liturgically, nor of the liturgikon, but rather about the books in the pews. If you wish to rebut, please contain it to this subject.


Stuart asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer; I didn't attempt to justify anything; just take it at face value.

Stuart takes every opportunity to jab at the Bishops, our promulgated Divine Liturgy and our Byzantine Catholic Church in general, and it's really wearing thin. He really stuck his foot in his mouth when he strongly inferred that the RDL is heretical and he should be called for that. He has backed off (it appears) but really should apologize out of respect to the readers of this forum whom he misled.

The original question of this thread, "Why the silence?" is, in my opinion, answered here in these last two pages..... A respectful exchange of opinion on the RDL is not possible. It leads to lack of charity, animosity and ill feeling.

Respectfully,
Fr. Deacon Paul

Why? The very notion of "typical editions" only dates to the invention of moveable type printing. Before then, every book was different. In any case, you missed, entirely, my point: if all the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission had tried to do was bring parochial practice up to a particular set of minima, they did not have to promulgate a new (and inferior) translation. Nor did they have to impose a single (and inferior) set of musical arrangements.


I always considered that part of the charm of the Ruthenian Church. If you go to Ukraine or Slovakia, you won't find two parishes, let alone eparchies, that do the same thing. By the way, in what Orthodox jurisdiction do you find any real degree of liturgical uniformity across parishes? The very notion that there is one "right" way to celebrate is a rather "Latin" idea.


Well, to quote my daughter, "My Church broke up with me". I'm bitter. I also loathe second-rate academics trying to foist off their pet theories as original research. A good translator is humble, and humility is not evident in the RDL.

As for our God-loving bishops, the history of the Ruthenian Church in this country, since its inception could practically be a clinical example of episcopal malpractice verging on ecclesiacide. Even the "official" histories have trouble papering over just how bad the situation has been. But, if you want or need statistical evidence, how many Ruthenians were there at the beginning of the 20th century, and how many at the end. Account for the delta, please. If the bishops are not responsible, then who is?


Not a chance. You just don't accept my explanation, and I can live with that, but I won't change my opinion nor will I apologize.


Someone once said that the good tree bears good fruit. If the fruit of the RDL has been bitter indeed, then what does that say about it?

Nor on this forum.

I'm not a translator. But I know enough to listen to people who are very good ones.

I'm sorry, I meant only to put the last phrase of the sentence. I was not intending to single out any particular person.

I am never sure what to think about posts like Erie’s. I consider (and routinely state) that the creators of the Revised Divine Liturgy are all good men who love the Lord, had the best of intentions and did what they thought was correct, but that they made mistakes (which have been documented) and that the mistakes need to be fixed (something easy to do). But some who disagree don’t seem to think we (who seek what Rome has prepared and promulgated for us) are likewise incorrect (and don’t bother to provide documentation to show that we are incorrect). They just attack our motives or person.

Deacon Paul,

Thank you for your post.

I must have not explained my points very well. What part of “theologically grave” did I not explain well?

The issue is not about personal preferences in Liturgy. The issue is that the bishops rejected the directives given by Rome in the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam. They (although meaning well) have done something wrong. The corrective active I seek is for the bishops to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and to promulgate (make normative) the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension (all of the official liturgical books promulgated and published by Rome) with translations that are accurate, complete, and in conformance with the Vatican guidelines.

Yes, you named what you believe are improvements. Yet none of your points required a revision of the Divine Liturgy. Do you see this point I am making? No violations of Vatican directives were necessary (and it is very well documented that the bishops violated the Vatican directives and are prohibiting the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the format promulgated by Rome).

The discussion here is about official standards, how the bishops (though well-intentioned) violated the official standards, and should act to conform to those standards rather than continue to reject them.


But the topic under discussion is not just pew books. And, besides, some parishes have found the new teal pew books to be so unacceptable to them that they have removed them from the pews and replaced them with ‘text only’ pamphlets. So the issues you suggest are solved with RDL pew books are all back again because of what many parishes see as the poor quality of the new RDL pew books.

Last week Bishop William celebrated a Revised Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Chapel at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. I did not attend but a friend of mine who works in the neighborhood and often attends daily Mass at the Shrine happened upon it. He is very knowledgeable in Liturgy and music and reported that 1) the bishop himself did not follow the new rubrics and 2) the music was not the new music but something between the old and new music. This is the case in many parishes, so the issues you seem to think are resolved are still there. But they are all minor compared to the larger discussion of liturgical standards. The bishops need to respect Liturgy and allow what Rome has mandated. I will refer to my point about “theologically grave”. The points you mention are all unimportant so long as there are doctrinal problems with the RDL. Your points come across as “Well, yes, we are celebrating the Liturgy with texts that have doctrinal problems according to Rome, but look at the pretty books!” See my point?

John

Modernism.

PS - I don't ever recall a time when something has been deleted from the Creed.

Modernism as heresy has an actual definition in the Catholic Church. The RDL has nothing to do with any of the 65 condemned propositions. I will agree elements of the RDL are problematic none rise to the level of heresy.

PS - The Byzantine Church deleted the first "God from God".

PPS - I don't agree with dropping "men", I just don't believe it is heresy.

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS



Two of the condemned propositions:

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

A defense of the RDL by one in the know:




From Pascendi Domini Gregis:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm






...and hence the need to drop words from the Creed and Liturgy that do not comport with the modern sense of the equality of the sexes. To put it succinctly, the Fathers of the Council of Nicea are excused for their "sexist" way of putting things.



With respect to deleting "God from God," the analogy simply doesn't apply.

Can you advise who wrote this, or where this defense of the RDL is from? I find this to be a bit offensive, and would like to see the context. It maybe that the author of the quote wants to table the discussion, but after forcing the neutered liturgy upon the people the discussion must happen. It would seem to me that had they wanted to avoid the discussion they could have left the proper translations remain. The author not only offends the laity who are against this imposition, but condemns the Church of antiquity for its own shortsightedness. While it would appear then they those who oppose the feminist encroachment are in good company they are written off as emotional dimwits. Is this really how they see those who want the creed to be translated properly? Who desire for accurate translations of the Liturgy?

Jesus, Son of Humankind?
The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations
by Paul Mankowski

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-08-033-f