www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Where are we at now?

I live very far away from any parish that is using the revised text of the Divine Liturgy, so I have very little first-hand experience. How have the changes played out nearly four years on? Does anyone feel they have experienced spiritual growth as a result? Has the opposition died down? Have any priests gone back to the previous usage? (Feel free to PM me about this if you prefer to discuss the matter privately.) I am asking only for my personal information as I am somewhat cut off from the day-to-day reality of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church.

Many thanks!

We use it regularly, with no adaptations. We had been using the old (1965) tones with the new texts, but Fr. James ended that. No big deal for us.

There are a couple of pro-SSPX types who whinge about it... but most of us ignore them.

So, am I one of your pro-SSPX types?

In the Pittsburgh Archeparchy there are still quite a few parishes that have never bothered with the Revised Divine Liturgy. They stick to the old books, thank you. Archbishop Basil does not comment and has pressured no priest using the old Liturgy to change. Word is that he knows the RDL will have a very short shelf life.

In Parma there are at least 3 re-worked versions of the liturgicon (I have 2). The priests are slowly putting the Liturgy back closer to the way it should be. It seems the only time the RDL is celebrated as mandated is when Bishop John celebrates it, but even he does not celebrate it exactly as he mandated it.

There is more conformance in Passic, since Bishop Andrw was a nasty enforcer and Bishop Skurla continues in that mode.

Van Nuys is full of birituals who don't know any better. Some of them I've spoken with actually believe Father Petras when he says that the RDL is closer to the 1942 than the 1964 was. They just don't know any better.

The music varies from parish to parish. Few parishes sing the music as it is written. Thompson's gone. The problems with his work remain. And the bishops are afraid to admit that they screwed up royally.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending Liturgy at the Ruthenian Shrine in the crypt of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where the celebrant used the Administrator's full translation. We used the traditional music to the new text, which the celebrant followed in full. It was a lovely, moving experience--and others apparently agreed, as we began to attract a crowd, even at mid-morning on a weekday.

The complete Liturgy took ninety minutes from start to finish, including a wonderful off-the-cuff homily. I see no reason why this text cannot be used in every parish in the Metropolia, or why our God-loving bishops would prefer to put out a radically truncated and bowdlerized version in place of the real thing.

No. You're not a Latin refugee attending solely because the priests' back is to the people. You're also not attending St. Nicholas.

The people I was referring to are specifically at St Nick because the SSPX are not in full union, and they won't accept the validity of the Pauline Missal.

It was fun watching them wince during Fr. James' homily, when he pointed out that if one misses, one must attend a Roman mass or an Orthodox DL, or go to confession prior to reception. This makes 2 weeks in a row he's mentioned that in his homilies.

We sing the new music now, and since we've switched, the participation in singing took a brief dip, and has shot back up as people have learned it, and they are singing it, and more strongly than ever. (Except for one lady, who insists on singing the kyivan harmonies even when they clash with the melodies... as in minor 9ths and major 9ths)

Well, good for you and your parish. Of course, you mileage may vary, and I can tell you for a fact that the RDL has had a devastating effect on many parishes here in the East--and not because of die-hard SSPX types. And even if it was wildly successful, that would not excuse the abysmal translation and the borderline heretical theological errors found within.

In other words, the Church should not foist an inferior piece of work off on its people, nor should it make the second rate mandatory. After all, the Liturgy does not belong to the clergy, but to all of us; it is our shared patrimony, and since the bishops have a long and dismal record regarding its promulgation and protection, who better than us?

As regards the music, the very notion of mandating one form of Prostopinje to the exclusion of all others simply indicates the people in charge did not understand the very nature of Prostopinje.

Meanwhile, stop being so smug. The Church is dying all around you, but "I'm all right, Jack" doesn't hack it. Neither does telling people to get with the program. We're not liturgical kamikazes--we don't go in for suicide missions.

What is the "Administrator's full translation?"

I believe he has posted it in draft form on this forum. It is a full and accurate translation of the Ruthenian Slavonic Recension of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, intended for private use. It is, in my opinion, what the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission should have produced (and could have, in far less time than they spent on the RDL) instead of the fatally flawed and abbreviated work that it did.

Among the 19 presbyters serving parishes of the Eparchy of Phoenix, only 2, are in fact Latin clergy serving with faculties from Bishop Gerald. Granted, there are some presbyters (maybe 3 or 4) who were formerly Latin clerics, but are now incardinated to the Eparchy of Phoenix. All of these men have served the eparchy for some time before the new promulgation. So, I'd hardly classify our eparchy as "full of birituals who don't know any better", in fact, your statement above is pure calumny.

Well, let's leave that calumny aside, and ask if it is true that many presbyters of Van Nuys (or Phoenix, or whatever it is this week) actually do believe the RDL is more faithful to the Slavonic Recension than the 1964/65 translation? Do they also believe that there is just one definitive form of Prostopinje, too?

Oh--it's the translation that John did. It's been approved by the bishops for private use? I guess that I'm confused, owing to the fact that I did not think "private" liturgies are allowed in the Ruthenian church, as "private" masses are allowed in the extraordinary form of the Latin church. But this sounds like it was a public liturgy since it was offered in the shrine of the IC, which is certainly a pilgrim and tourist destination and you attracted a crowd.

Deacon John's observation is well-taken and I'd suggest that, as this particular thread further develops, posters keep in mind that there is no dispensation excusing snide commentary merely because this forum is focused on a topic that can be controversial.

Many years,

Neil

I've had a few e-mails on this.

I will join the others in stating that calumny should be left aside.

I will re-state a point I have made often, quoting the Liturgical Instruction that all the Eastern Catholic Churches need to rediscover full fidelity to our own liturgical traditions (see par. 18). As a whole, I believe that no Greek Catholic Church (Ruthenians included) has restored and lived the tradition, let alone restored it and lived it to the point of being formed by it over generations to the point of understanding it enough to change it. I apply this to everyone - including bishops, other clergy, and laymen.

-

A few points:

1. The draft text referenced that is available on this forum is now over a year old, and has changed greatly as the review of the text has progressed. Currently, two liturgicons have been prepared (Chrysostom and Basil). They are study editions for private use, and are full and accurate (and hopefully elegant) translations of the normative Ruthenian text (1942). Currently they remain in initial review. The project will move to public review but it makes sense to find and fix as many mistakes as is possible, simply to avoid dozens of e-mails from reviewers finding the same errors.

The liturgicons have been used by priests outside the Ruthenian metropolia, with positive response. They have also been reviewed by Slavonic experts, also with positive response (though that review is not yet complete).

Both liturgicons (Chrysostom and Basil) are actually ready for public review. But, I have been delaying this because I wanted to evaluate the Revised Grail Psalter to see if using it would make sense (since it will be the new standard for 65 million Roman Catholics and since there is no single standard among Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)). The Revised Grail Psalter did receive Vatican recognitio in March but there were changes made by the Vatican and the final product has not yet been made public (supposedly it will be any day now). My expectation is that when the final Revised Grail Psalter is available it will take a few weeks to evaluate the texts for possible use, and, if selected, to integrate these updated texts (currently the psalm translations are based on the D-R Bible). Hopefully, the draft liturgicons will be ready for public review sometime this summer.

An update to the "Levkulic Pew Book" as well as similar updates to the texts for Vespers, Matins and the other Divine Services are underway. The intent is merely to publish study editions that are complete, accurate, elegant and totally faithful to both our liturgical tradition and to the Vatican directives (such as Liturgiam Authenticam and the Liturgical Instruction).

I continue with this work 1) because I really enjoy it and 2) clergy and laity continue to ask me to do so and 3) with the hard work supplied by several others the product seems to be fairly good and is attracting positive response. Maybe this work will someday influence what follows the Ruthenian RDL. Maybe it won't. I am still praying and waiting that appeals pending in Rome for the right of clergy and the laity to have access to the fullness of our own liturgy are heard and granted. Not a week goes by without my hearing from a priest or cantor complaining about the RDL. After 3 years that is very telling.

2. John K asked if the draft text I have prepared was authorized for private use. No. It is merely a study edition. The priest who celebrated with this text at the National Shrine is not a priest of the Ruthenian Metropolia and, therefore, not bound by the RDL or any of the Ruthenian mandates to abbreviate or alter the Divine Services away from the normative books published by Rome.

The term RDL comprises such topics as the chant, the Ruthenian Recension form of the liturgy and the translation of the Recension text or the substitution of other texts in the translation that is the RDL.

That the RDL is used should not be surprising since it is mandated by our bishops: people want to pray and not just argue about various aspects of the liturgy. Nevertheless, the questions are legitimate and need to be addressed: How good is the translation? How faithful is it to the Recension text? Does it need to be faithful to the Recension text? How monolithic should our chant be?

These are not just academic questions. They go to the core of what is meant by "church" and what is meant, I submit, is not just bishops and presbyters arbitrarily calling the shots. While their legitimate authority is acknowledged and respected, they are not the sole standard, they alone are not the church. Serious questions have been raised about how and in what form our liturgical heritage has been handed on in the form that is the RDL. Those questions still need to be addressed.

The Ruthenian Recension text of the liturgy, while solidly in the Byzantine Rite liturgical tradition, is our own unique, beautiful, balanced and pristine (in many ways) form of worship. Its integrity has been compromised by an abridged form now mandated (in English) with various modifications seemingly taken from other liturgical sources or individualistic preference, and that as a translation with some glaring (and I would say embarrassing) deficiencies. Why?

That's where we are with the RDL. Is that where we should, or want to, be?