www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What have been the fruits of the RDL?

Erie,

You and others are certainly free to post what you consider to be Good Fruit from the RDL. Indeed, I ask you to do so. What exactly has been a Good Fruit from the RDL that was not possible with the full Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgy that was possible before the RDL? You complain a lot in your posts on all subjects, but you always go quiet when asked to be specific. Please now tell us in great specificity what Good Fruits you have seen with the changes (new texts, new rubrics, new music) and explain why they were not possible with the Ruthenian Liturgy (older texts and rubrics based on the Roman books, and older music).

I look at the whole package and see that the bad far out shadows anything good. When the bishops mandate a version of the Creed that Rome has labeled "theologically grave" (along with the other doctrinally problematic issues) how do you manage to ignore them and not call for corrections? Please answer and be specific!

You can use my posts as an example. I have criticized what is wrong, backed up my criticism with documentation from Rome and elsewhere, and pointed out exactly what needs to be done to correct the problems. It would not take a lot of effort. Printing new books is not overly expensive given what can be done.

John

All I am asking is what you and other Moderators fail to do. Keep the conversation on task as to what the original post is. I do not post on much because I do not consider myself an expert like many here, I also cannot speak much of the old translation, because I started my journey East while it was preparing to be phased out.

I also do not post much for reactions much as you had in your post because much response from others becomes personal and I feel that Christian Charity has been thrown out the window in this forum.

Much discussion on this forum is generally one-sided because those on the "opposing side" are quickly shut down by the "experts."

Back to the topic. I agree that there are some unneccessary and even illogical changes, but some good can come out of it. You say that you look at the whole package and the bad far outweighs the good, which is a valid opinion.

I think there are some good fruits amidsts the "chaos." The change in translation made people stop and think what they were saying, what it meant and how it affected their lives. I also believe that it forced us to slow down in the liturgy. From my experience the Liturgy is not rushed through as much now as it was before the change.

I know, some will argue that these things could have happened without mandated liturgical change, but since that occured, these are a few good fruits that I have experienced.

Erie,

You seem to have missed the original post? The discussion in this thread has been entirely on topic. ByzBob asked for a discussion of both good and bad fruit:

You believe that the change in translation made people stop and think what they were saying. I think that is the first specific comment you have offered. Do you believe that the whole chaos with the RDL was necessary to accomplish this? If so, how and why?

Do you have any answers to the other questions raised by ByzBob? Has the use of gender neutral politically correct language caused people to come in? Have any of the disputed changes (music, unnecessary abridgment, etc.,) resulted in a deepening of understanding the spiritual treasure of the eastern church? If yes, how and why? And why could this not have been done with the existing versions?

You complain about one sidedness. Well, offer your positions and back them up with quotes from authoritative sources.

John

John,

It seems as though you missed part of my post as well.



Regarding sources, any source that our "experts" disagree with is labeled garbage and therefore is not authoritative. One cannot have a civil conversation about liturgical reform in the Ruthenian Metopolia because everybody here thinks they are right.

Many claim people are running away from the Revised Liturgy, but as stated earlier, how many people are just using it as an excuse to run? Yes, the Ruthenian Church is shrinking, but what Slavic Church isn't?

Some numbers from Catholic-Hierarchy, not an authoritative source, but reliable:

Ruthenian Metroplia: (stats from 1990 and 2004-so pre-RDL)
Pittsburgh 141,807 - 60,100
Parma 20,019 - 12,401
Passaic 82,587 - 24,031
Van Nuys 17,125 - 2,849

Ukrainian Metroplia:
Philadelphia 77,000 - 65,500
St. Josaphat (Parma) 11,935 - 11,058
St. Nicholas (Chic) 26,000 - 12,000
Stamford 39,505 - 16,000

Erie,

But again, how would you argue that the good fruit you listed required the RDL? If the changes had been in a different direction (towards a more literal, accurate translation) would the fruits have been the same, better or worse? Does the one fruit you list make up for any negative fruits you see? Was the revision worth it for just this one fruit you see? You've been asked, please explain!

As to authoritative sources being labeled "garbage" please provide specific examples. I do not remember any appeals to Vatican directives to support the RDL. Father David Petras specifically labeled "Liturgiam Authenticam" as being bad theology because he believed its anthropology was not favorable to women (meaning because it rejected gender neutral language). I've read his book on the RDL several times. I give him great credit for writing it, but there is no real theology given there. He essentially says the bishops may do what they want with the Liturgy and then explains what was being revised (it wasn't meant to provide the meaty theology). It seems to me that no authoritative sources have been offered to support the theology of the RDL. Even Father Robert Taft, SJ, has condemned it.

How many people are using the RDL as an excuse to run? I don't know. Why would they say it was the RDL that forced them to walk rather then the real reason? I'm not sure I understand your point here. I do know that most people choose a parish based on the quality of the Liturgy. It is unreasonable to expect someone to stay in a Ruthenian parish where they don't like the Liturgy when they can go to a Latin parish closer to home where the Liturgy might be better (or even worse if it saves them a half hour in the car). Don't forget that it's been drummed into them that the only important thing is that they belong to a Catholic Church.

As to the numbers you quote, none of them are accurate nor have they ever been accurate. They were always misreported. But that's not your fault and there is no way you could have known. The pre-RDL totals for all Ruthenians was probably closer to 30,000 (there were several threads on this that you might want to search for).

John

Speaking for myself I am not looking for an excuse to run. Who wants to leave a church or a church community for no reason? As a father though, I have to worry about the spiritual well being of my child, as well as myself and wife. Gender neutral language typically is not the end game when it comes to liberals* - it is only the beginning, or so it has been the history in other churches that have adopted it (gender neutral language). It saddens me that we went down this road. I do hope that I am wrong about our direction, which is why I asked for some examples of good fruits of the RDL.

*NOTE: I am not saying that the people involved with the promulgation of the RDL were liberals, but that they at least allowed themselves to be influenced by a liberal philosophy.

So, what's the good? You have yet to enumerate any, but I feel your pain.


It most certainly did. Language is important to me. I make my living with words, and know only too well that words have meaning and those meanings have consequences. My wife is a professional linguist and translator, for whom language is also very important. Being fluent in Slavonic and several other Slavic languages, she is also fully qualified to determine whether a translation is accurate or not.

Because language is so central to both of us, we paid very close attention indeed to what was said in the Liturgy, both before and after the revision. It is precisely because we stopped and gave full attention and thought to the meaning of what was being said in the Revised Divine Liturgy that we realized we could not stay in the Ruthenian Church.

You probably think that was one of the better fruits of the change.

How quick we are to rush to speculation. Again to the finger pointing and faulty conclusions. Although I am politically a left-leaning moderate, liturgically I am pretty conservative.

I have found these posts very interesting and have spent time reflecting and praying on them.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
The fact that there has been so much discussion shows that people are open to change.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
That people are trying to see how these chages fit in what they believe and are redefining their beliefs.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
Seeing that God can use anyone regardless of human fralities for His glory.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
That we are now given a call to action.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
If we can see the power of the Holy Spirit in these change.
Then this is a positive fruit of the RDL.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

I don't understand storyteller's post. The people deserve accurate translations, singable music and the whole Liturgy. I don't know why he thinks that those of us petitioning the bishops for what is right are cursing the darkness. I see us as the light of renewal. The call to action I see is to convince our bishops to allow our own Liturgy.

You got my meaning. So long as action occurs this is good. Too often people complain and say there is nothing that can be done. There can be many creative ways that change can be made to happen especially through prayer.

Funny, but in the now 6 weeks that we've been using the new melodies at St. Nick, we've got most of the parish singing them... Ok, it's not the first time we've used them, but it's the first time they've been consistently used. And, given the "teal terror" and its annotated music, most of the parish is joining in the Prokeimenon and Alleluiarion refrains, and a significant chunk are singing by the third line.

The melodies ARE singable. The word-fit to them is not always good but they are singable.

Also...
There is a difference between obedience while petitioning for change, and grousing whilst (or after) leaving for "greener pastures." The latter would be, I think, the cursing in the darkness; the former, the light.

As I said, some of us want to be Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome. It is clear that is not the objective of the leadership of the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Therefore, we cannot and will not ever attain what we need for spiritual growth within that Church. So we go elsewhere. Within the Melkite Church I have found the fullness of Orthodoxy. I lead a more complete liturgical and spiritual life (when was the last time your parish celebrated Orthros before the Divine Liturgy, or Vespers (sans Divine Liturgy) on a Saturday evening? Or weekday Vespers? When was the last time one of your hierarchs insisted on something more than the nominal ascetic disciplines adhered to by the Ruthenian Church?

The Melkites are comfortable in their skin. They have no desire to be a "third way", but only to live in the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition. That's what I wanted, too. For a while, I thought I could find it in the Ruthenian Church, but it is now apparent that I was quite wrong in that assessment. Unless there is a real metanoia on the part of the hierarchy and clergy of the Church, it will continue to be neither fish nor fowl, but rather the "Roman rite of the Greek Catholic Church".

By the away, Aramis, I notice you glided over "accurate translations" and the "whole liturgy". Are those of no concern to you? Also, your parish now sings. Good on them. I can name quite a few parishes where nobody sang before, and nobody sang afterwards. More to the point, I can name parishes where the people used to sing lustily and now hold their tongues. I can name parishes that have lost a third or more of their members in the last three years.

But I am glad you are doing well. The technical term for your attitude is "I'm alright, Jack". It's a little myopic, and usually comes back to bite, though.

1. I suppose it depends on one's definition of "singable". The "word-fit" (as you call it) is not very good. This has been discussed somewhat. Look at the first Sunday antiphon. The older setting properly accented the English text with "glo-ri-ous praise". The Thompson setting has people singing "glo-RI-OUS praise". How many people do you know who walk around saying: "Have a glo-RI-OUS day"? But that is just one of many examples. I'd recommend reading the archives for the discussions you've missed. Some of the major issues with the music are: 1) a too literal faithfulness to the Boksaj to the point where the accents are incorrect, 2) a failure to recognize that Boksaj was no longer the standard but the chant had moved on (even in Europe) and 3) a desire of the man hired to write the music to have it be his (meaning he changed a lot of perfectly good settings just so that they would be his).

2. There are some who will not worship in a parish where "theologically grave" doctrine is proclaimed. I'd say the ones standing up and complaining, and asking the bishops to be orthodox in their doctrine are the ones holding the candle.

Keep in mind the example of the Latin Church. After the Vatican II reforms up to one third of Latin Catholics left, only to become "Christmas and Easter Catholics". Some like to blame them as disobedient and uneducated. But in truth the bishops are the ones responsible for their leaving. Change should only be organic, and even then good change must be introduced slowly. In Inaestimabile Donum Pope John Paul the Great noted: "Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful."

The thing that gets me is that it is so much easier to do what is correct then it is do to what is wrong. Even now it would not take much to correct what is wrong and reprint the books. The people do deserve to be taught correct doctrine; they deserve the opportunity to access the full Divine Liturgy (and other Divine Services), and they deserve good music. One priest has told me that the celebration of the Divine Liturgy has gone from a joy to a chore. His comment is not unusual. And you know people pick up on that and that it influences their attitude towards the Church.

My Aunt Florence was among them. She went to Mass weekly, sometimes more often, until the change in the liturgy, after which she simply stopped going. I think the only times she ever entered a Catholic church after that was for weddings and funerals.

Ironically, one of the last times I saw her was at the baptism of my sister's first child at a Greek Orthodox church. She was clearly enthralled, and as we were leaving, she said to all of us, "Now, that's what Mass should be like".