www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What is changed in Revised Divine Liturgy?

My original purpose in posting this information was merely to point out that, in fact, priests and deacons in the Passaic Eparchy, do not have the freedom to take the above "bracketed" petitions and the bracketed "dveri, dveri" (prior to the Creed). I was attempting to correct a mis-statement of fact, not to comment on the wisdom of the restriction.

Dn. Robert

Did anybody every question these restrictions and others while the former bishop was engaging in wholesale destructio in ecclesia? It is the failure to speak out which is most distressing of all.

It is one thing to be obedient to authority.

It is something quite different to be silent when those in authority do things that are wrong. Staying silent in the face of what is wrong is not just a cop out it is immoral.

If obedience is the highest virtue, then why did then-Monsignor Andrew Pataki lead a presbyteral rebellion against the "reforms" of his bishop, Nicholas Elko (the New Iconoclast)? Perhaps Bishop Andrew's micromanagerial and near-paranoid style of "leadership" was from fear of having done to him what he had done himself?

In my own case, I have expressed my opinions on the RDL, which are virtually identical to those of the Moderator of this forum, to my pastor, my bishop, and on this forum (check my posts on the issue). You are accusing the wrong guy here.

Dn. Robert

Which sounds too much like the Staff Officer's Maxim: "An action passed is an action completed". But, if you felt strongly that the RDL was both wrong and deleterious to the health of the Church, do you not have an obligation to continue raising your objections until they are addressed, or, if they are not addressed, to resign your ministry?

You can say the same about the faithful...

Well, I voted with my feet. So have many others. Of course, our bishops characterize us as troublemakers and say "Good riddance!"

Soon they will have to deal with John Henry Cardinal Newman's observation to Cardinal Gibbons: "The laity, my lord, are those without whom the Church would appear silly".

Clerical disobedience is sinful on a level different from that of the laity, Stuart.

For them to openly disobey is sinful, tho' to make complaint to the bishops whilst obeying is far from sinful, and while quite a hard road, still what they are called to do.

They do not have the option of voting with their feet.

And yet we have disobedient clerics numbered among the saints, right from the beginning. St. Paul set the example, when he confronted Peter to his face and rebuked him for sitting with the circumcizers.


They can put aside their ministry, if they cannot exercise it with free will. They can asked to be released, in the same way that an officer unable to obey an unlawful order, or asked to execute a policy with which he strongly disagrees, can resign his commission.

Your example is incorrect. Paul didn't disobey Peter. If you re-read Galatians Chapter 2 you will see that Paul was confronting Peter's hypocrisy....sometimes Peter would eat with Gentiles and other times he refused...depending who was present. Disobedience was not at all the issue because St Peter himself said that the Gospel should be brought to the Gentiles.

With regard to the military, I was an enlisted man and, believe me, I didn't have the option to resign. The consequence was court martial.

But Maximos the Confessor disobeyed everybody. So did John of Damascus and Theodore Studites. I can pull up other examples.


If you believed strongly enough that the order was illegal or immoral, then you would have no choice but to take the court martial. Officers do get to resign their commissions, though, and as a deacon, consider yourself an officer.

I doubt the validity of a local supression. The whole purpose of the RDL was to have one uniform set of texts, music, and rubrics for the Metropolia. Indeed I believe the Commission did want to excise those petitions entirely but Rome required them to be left as an option. Even if Bishop Andrew declared them suppressed I would ask Bishop William if they are again permitted. Bishop Andrew also forbid deacons to wear cuffs, I served with a deacon who ignored that one. Is that particular supression still around?

I take the oath I took at ordination as unbreakable unless my bishop were to ask me to adhere to heresy or practice immorality. Since I do not believe the RDL to be either, even though I disagree with some of it, I cannot in good conscience refuse to serve. There are others who felt in good conscience they could not serve and left for the Ukrainians, Romanians, or Melkites. While I do not agree with it, I respect their right to do so.

You beat me to the punch. In my case, I think the RDL is a problem in several areas, but we do not have an invalid Liturgy. I have not abandoned the possibility that a "reform of the reform" may ultimately occur (hope it does not take 40 years to get to that point).

Dn. Robert