www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question # 4 on new Translation of Liturgy

Is the Pope (then Cardinal) suggesting that there is something fundamentally different in the way Liturgy legitimately and properly grows and develops in the East (as opposed to the way this was done in the West after Vatican II)?

What is �unspontaneity� in the Liturgy? How does greatness depend on it?

What does he mean by the East�s appreciation for the �liturgy�s independence from human control�, that �one cannot do with it what one will�?

Nick

No thoughts?

The West has ALWAYS had much wider liturgical variation than the East - the fusion of Roman and Gallican customs, the development of private celebrations of the praises and Mass, the Quinones breviary, the office of Pius X, liturgical drama, tropes, etc. - long before Vatican II.

The East IS more conservative, liturgically. I think this is evidenced by the fact that MOST of the complaints on this forum have been about one bishop's forbidding the use of litanies that are not in liturgical books in use for more than thirty years, and about the order not to use certain verses marked as optional. Compared to, say, the Greek books of Violakis, or the Nikonian reforms, these are VERY small developments in liturgy, even for the East - and the proposed text (which you mention in the title of this thread) does not even contain most of the changes it is being accused of ("five" or "six omitted litanies", etc.)

In terms of unspontaneity - curiously enough, the East over time has probably allowed MORE discretion to the individual priest: "Every priest is own typikon" - while making smaller changes in the published books. I think we are seeing that same "lawful development" here, albeit by fits and starts. (For example, some of the changes in US adaptations of the 1940's Roman editions, and some of the further changes in the liturgy in Parma and Passaic, are being UN-DONE in the proposed text. But people seem determined to put the worst face on it, despite the final resolution of issues like the filioque. Two months ago, there was a firestorm over the idea that the filioque, which is still IN the book we are using, might be reprinted by the bishops as an option - as it is in the 1940's ROman edition. (Nicholas, remember that your were 100% behind the 1940's text.) But when it goes away, FINALLY, in the new text - no mention at all...)

Change - even lawful and organic change - always looks different when you're in the middle of it. So a counter-question: compared to the texts provided by your bishop, how "spontaneous" is your priest in celebrating the liturgy? I would wager that his changes are in line with tradition, occasionally adding a tropar or leaving out a litany. THAT is the unspontaneity of the East. The liturgy we have is the liturgy we celebrate - is the liturgy we become.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Several people have compared the proposed new text (or the Parma/Passaic recension) to the Latin's missa normativa, or "Novus Ordo". The fact is that, celebrated ACCORDING TO THE LITURGICAL BOOKS, it is possible to celebrate the Latin missa normativa twice, with only 25% or 30% of the text in common - i.e., one celebration differs from another at almost every point in some way, based on the choices made by the priest and singers - and further priestly ad-libbing may even add to that. By comparison, I would wager that ANY two liturgies celebrated according to our books probably differ by what - 3%? 5%? 8% if one take the antiphons and the other the typica?- and are composed almost entirely of hymns and texts more than 800 years old.

This is incorrect. The 1964 red Liturgicon contained all the litanies and the priest has never been prohibited from praying them until now. There have always been parishes that have prayed them. Even though the people did not always have the texts (in the �Gray� and �Green� books and later the Levkulic �Pew Book�) priests did pray these litanies � even if only occasionally.

I grew up in a highly Latinized parish. But there were two Divine Liturgies every Sunday, one very �low� and the other very �high�. The 9:00 AM Sunday Divine Liturgy was an extreme of the �Greek Catholic Low Mass�. But the 10:30 AM Sunday Divine Liturgy was very �high�. We only sang one verse to the antiphons but the people loved the little litanies between them so much that they insisted on singing the �Hospodi pomiluj, Hospodi pomiluj, Hospodi pomiluj, Tebi Hospodi, Amin� straight through even when the priest did not intone the petitions. On ordinary Sundays the priest did not take the Litany of the Catechumens or the Litany of the Faithful but he did often take the Litany before the Creed and always took the Litany after �Dostono Jest�. This even continued in English for some time.

I think that Jeff�s point that these litanies were not in the people�s books is important. I believe that the fact that they were not in the people�s books is what caused them to continue to be discarded. This is a prime example of what happens when one lowers the standard. The lower one sets the standard the less likely people are to hit it.

In another thread Jeff asked people to choose between the new revised Liturgy and the �1950�s Slavonic High Mass�. I don�t think that these are fair choices, since Jeff does not allow for the possibility of actually moving our Church towards a full embracement of the standard set by Rome when it published the official liturgical books for the Ruthenian Recension. We had made much progress towards this standard before the Revisionists decided to abandon it.

But� for the same of the discussion I will assume that we only have these two choices for the future standard - the new �Revised Liturgy� or the �1950�s Slavonic High Mass� (but in English). If these were the only choices I would choose the �1950�s Slavonic High Mass� standard every time. Even with all its flaws it is closer to the Ruthenian Recension and the rest of Orthodoxy than is this silly Revisionist Liturgy. Having said this, I will repeat that it is my hope and prayer that the bishops have the courage to reject this revision to the Liturgy and embrace the fullness of the Ruthenian recension.

It is still my hope that all of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) can work together to produce common texts of the Divine Liturgy. I understand that Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown and Archbishop Vsevolod have each spoken publicly about their support for such a task. Perhaps the Ukrainian Catholics and the Romanian Byzantine Catholics in North America would also support such an endeavor? But even here I would advise introducing only the priest�s texts in the short term. Changes to the people�s texts should be introduced only over several generations.

It is obvious that many of the faithful and priests of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church in America are not in favor of the proposed "Revisionist" Divine Liturgy. It is also all too clear that their opinions do not matter or count. By forcing the revised liturgy upon the Metropolia will only cause dissension and lead to a loss of church membership. Can a small "sui juris" Eastern Catholic Church afford to take such risks and survive?

Ungcsertezs

Dear Administrator,

Actually, I did NOT ask anyone to CHOOSE between the two versions, the official one and the one as actually used; I intended to point out that they were different, and that some aspects of the 1942 Sluzhebnik, introduced here, have caused or will cause controversy; and that the 1942 books have sometimes been perceived as "revisionist". For example, I still see priests consuming the Gifts during the Liturgy rather than after the dismissal, and have been told this is "our tradition" and must not be changed.

I already pointed out that the "five or six omitted litanies" are NOT omitted in the Divine Liturgy text under consideration, at least as we sang it in the seminary last year. In fact, some elements removed in Bishop +Andrew's changes have been put BACK into the text. So I think you in turn may be presenting a false dichotomy: between "real reform" and "silly revisionist liturgy."

Could you please list the elements in the CURRENT proposed liturgical text that you feel deserve such a title?

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. I admit there may be many things in the liturgy we love, but can a set of responses with no bidding, petitions or prayer really be called a litany? If the Latins adopted "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, to you O Lord, Amen" and said it was a litany "just like the Orthodox use", would we cheerfully agree? Though I admit that this kind of shortening is pretty old; the Bokshai _Prostopinije_ shows the responses run together WITH COMMAS. But it is respectful to the liturgy we have received?

Today, that is. In the early centuries of the Church after the founding of Constantinople, the West complained bitterly about the innovations that the Byzantine liturgy was making.

One of the additions to the beginning of the Byzantine Liturgy was the singing of the Antiphons along witht the stational processions.

We make a dandy fuss about litanies between Antiphons and taking more Psalm verses, but don't weep about the loss of processions that went with it. So, we mimick a procession around the temple or in front of the iconostasis like a glorified cuckoo clock routine and still have the audacity to call it a liturgical rite. In turn, the thematic/theological character of the Entrance Rite is dulled, if not overshadowed, by more accumulations of Great Litany and Proskomide.

Now, we recommend singing propers for the day BEFORE the beginning as if the themes contained in the troparia and kontakia can't do it alone.

Where, my friends, DOES the Byzantine Liturgy start?

And why do we fight over things that are, what Fr. Robert Taft would call, "soft parts" of the Liturgy, namely the Entrance Rites, Transfer of Gifts, and Communion and Dismissal Rites?

Joe

Jeff,

Thanks for the post. I have spoken at length about the liturgical revision and I really don�t feel a need to keep repeating myself (which is why I have been mostly silent in this recent round of discussions).

You are correct that there are many priests who do not properly follow the official rubrics of the Ruthenian recension. The solution is not to revise the recension but to educate and encourage future priests to conform their celebration of the Divine Services to the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension. You don�t dumb down the standard because people don�t meet it. You lead them to the point where they can meet the standard. And you certainly do not distance us from other Byzantines (Orthodox and Catholic) when we are called to be like them.

You asked: �can a set of responses with no bidding, petitions or prayer really be called a litany?� Perhaps not. But the fact that it survives to this day should indicate that the faithful love praying �Lord, have mercy� to the extent that they are willing to continue singing it even when the priest does not pray the petitions. Why do the Revisionists see it so necessary to deny the people their portion of liturgical prayer?

Regarding your comment on the Latins, the last time I was at a Roman Catholic Mass the people prayed the �Kyrie�:

Lord, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

My Roman Catholic priest friends tell me that it once had petitions to go with it and that �Form C� of the other penitential rites actually restores these petitions. It does not have a petition to which people respond �To You, O Lord� but it does have a concluding prayer to which the people respond �Amen�. So really the Roman Catholics already have this and I do not object to them having it.

I am not advocating the retaining of the responses to litanies without the petitions being prayed. I am advocating the standard that allows these litanies to remain intact so that the parishes that wish to pray them not be forbidden to do so.

But this discussion is not just about antiphons and litanies. The standard of the Ruthenian Church must be preserved.

Admin

I don�t wish to answer Nicholas� post with questions but his quote from Cardinal Ratzinger�s (now Pope Benedict XVI) �The Spirit of the Liturgy� raises some interesting questions.

�What is important is that the great forms of rite embrace many cultures. They not only incorporate the diachronic aspect, but also create communion among different cultures and languages. They elude control by any individual, local community, or regional Church.�

And what are we Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics doing but rejecting the form that currently embraces many cultures (as well as both Catholic and Orthodox Churches) and creating our own local liturgical recension for something less than 50,000 Americans? We will have a different liturgical standard then even the Ukrainian Catholics. This at a time when the day has come where a single priest will have to support both a Ruthenian and Ukrainian parish in one community because of emigration of the faithful to more prosperous areas of our country. Imagine the headaches these priests will have in following not just two translations of the Liturgy but two different Liturgies!

�Unspontaneity is of their essence. In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the �Divine Liturgy�, expressing thereby the liturgy�s independence from human control.�

Is the Liturgy so much the property of men that we can change it to suit the current trends of modern times?

Are the other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) so unimportant that we can freely abandon the unifying standard of the Liturgy? How can the Revisionists be so positive that their proposed revisions are guided by the Spirit and the rest of the Church unguided by the Spirit because it is not contemplating similar revisions?

��is it true that this special path, which finds space for freedom and historical development, must not be condemned wholesale. However, it would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental institutions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned.

How does this changing of the Liturgy contribute to the �breaking up� of our identity as Byzantine Christians?

Is it really OK for a small group of Ruthenians in America to change the foundation of our identity as Byzantine Christians?

These are very large questions that no one in our Church has addressed. The proposals are really nothing more than a re-write of the Liturgy to suit the personal tastes of a few individuals.

I remember reading and have kept a statement by the Vatican and Pope Pius X,issued on May 22, 1908
concerning the Russian Catholics; "Therefore His Holiness commands the aforementioned priest Zerchaninor to observe the laws of the Greek-Slavic Rite faithfully and in all without any admixture from the Latin Rite or any other Rite".

In response to the concern regarding the liturgy, Pope Pius X stated that Russia Catholics should comply with synodal practices, but with the response, nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter, which is to say, no more, no less, no different.

This statement is at http://www.rispubs.com/article.cfm?Number=841

Hope it sheds some light here.

james

I think that Nicholas and the administrator may be misunderstanding the idea here. IMO this remark is not a suggestion that the liturgy does not evolve. Such an interpretation is proven false by the very history of the liturgy itself. Fr. David has summarized this evolution on another thread - his post is now saved on the patronage web-site.

I think that this refers to the "scripted" nature of our liturgy. (This word was used - with some criticism - over at the Indiana list, to contrast with, for example, Protestant services.) There are no spontaneous prayers, ad hoc liturgical themes and/or actions; we have a typicon and an ordo. The details can change and have changed over the years, and among the various Eastern churches. But a priest or a congregation's liturgy committee (something that may exist in RC parishes, but something that I think that we do not even have) is not empowered to enact the service as they please. We serve as a church. And if you go to one of a church's parishes or another you would expect a large degree of uniformity.

The quote ISTM referes to Western versus Eastern paths. But even if applied within the East, wisdom lies in understanding the difference between what is "fundamental" and what is not. If one takes everything as fundamental then there is no "space for freedom and historical development", and the passage is self-contradictory. If one takes "what I am accustomed to" as fundamental, then one is indulging a wholly idiosyncratic view of the "foundations of Christian identity". What is the basis for assuming that liturgical "soft spots" as Joe quotes them being called, are fundamental?

I�m not suggesting that the liturgy does not evolve. I have been consistent in stating that it does evolve. In this context, I am suggesting that evolving over time is something quite different than mandating change based upon personal preference. Byzantines have always been prone to simply allowing evolvement to be tested over time and only then to make changes to the liturgy book. With the proposed revisions we are not merely documenting change that has already occurred and been accepted by the Church, but rather forcing change upon the Church. Those seeking mandated revisions are exerting human control upon the liturgy.

Regarding Father David�s post, it is saved here as well. No one has contacted me for permission to repost it elsewhere (a permission I almost always give as long as proper credit and a link to the appropriate page here is included).

We are Church not only in the local sense (the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh) but also in the catholic (universal) sense. We share the Divine Liturgy with other local Byzantine Churches and it is not our property to do as we please with. Any change to the rubrics or texts needs the agreement of the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) or, for recension changes, the agreement of the Churches of that recension. The Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Moscow should be able to enter into any one of our parishes and be at home with the liturgicon on the holy table (save for the few differences between the Greek, Russian and Ruthenian recensions and assuming they speak and read English).

The way forward is to work with all the Byzantine Churches (or at least whoever is willing) to produce a common set of English language books. If organic change occurs, let it occur naturally. Organic development is never mandated and mandates are a sign that it is not organic.

Where is the space for freedom for those who wish to retain the traditional Byzantine liturgical form?

Or do not those who seek conformity with our brother Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) deserve the same freedom as the Revisionists?

None of us are �accustomed to� the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension. And that is a major part of the problem. We are altering before restoring. We are only at the beginning of restoring what we have lost and some wish to revise it before our Church has a history of living the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension.

Joe spoke to the audacity to call the Office of the Three Antiphons a �liturgical rite� because they do not have the original processions that went with it.

What is he proposing?

Is he suggesting that we move from �Blessed is the kingdom� right to the Scripture readings?

If there are no processions is there a need for the Office of the Three Antiphons at all? The Hymn of the Incarnation was an accretion. The Trisagion is a remnant of another processional hymn (with the �Holy God, Holy Mighty�.� being the troparion refrain to the verses or a psalm). Even the Litany of Peace comes to us from elsewhere in the liturgy. All of them seem to fall into Joe�s definition of �soft spots� (and I am not at all sure that he is defining it the same as Taft).

Can we even keep the Third Antiphon? After all, we are already gathered inside the church building when the Liturgy begins. Must we gather outside and enter together for us to retain the Third Antiphon so as not to dull the Entrance Rite (in Ben Lomond the clergy used to take everything up to the Third Antiphon from the back of the church and enter the altar only at the Third Antiphon)?

What else shall we get rid of? The Cherubic Hymn is a late arrival. Shall we go back to singing Psalm 23[24] instead? Do we need the Great Entrance? Is not the movement of the gifts from the table of preparation to the holy table a remembrance of the procession by the deacons from a separate place, next to Hagia Sophia? OK. So you would want to get rid of this since it�s no longer necessary, right? Is everything on the chopping block? What else do people not like? Shall we get rid of those things too? Are you suggesting that we must start from scratch to ensure �space for freedom and historical development�?

No. The way forward is to respect the Liturgy as it is. And to allow organic development to occur across all of the Byzantine Churches. When such development does occur then we can update the Liturgy books to reflect this development.

As Father David and others pointed out, most, if not all, of what is "different" actually involve practices organically evolved in some of our parishes and/or some Eastern churches. Also, I don't think we ever arrived at a closure on the issue of "mandated". I think the "personal preference" charge, to the extent that it carries the connotation of caprice, is unfortunate.

If you think this is what the Cardinal meant, then I think you are missing his message. All organic changes necessarily involve human decision. And any implicit suggestion that there was no control in the Byzantinization of the the Middle Eastern Greek Orthodox Patriarchates, or in the Nikonian reforms, etc. cannot be reconclied with historical reality.

You turn Eastern ecclessiology on its head here, just a bit don't you? But worse, I think you exagerrate the changes. The variations in antiphons verses, litanies explcitly taken or not, anaphora aloud are precedented in current Orthodox practice. And the variations do not lead to lack of recognition.

Where is the heavy lifting in identifying authentic tradition, organic development - I see the scholarship in Fr. Petras's writing. But in opposition is there scholarship or just antiquarianism?

And freedom? Here again the point is: there is freedom, within limits of authentic tradition, organic development, and pastoral sensitivity, as a church. As an individual, I will accept what our church through the leaders given to us by God propose - my private judgment, and invitations to jump jurisdictions - notwithstanding. And I think it a good thing that there is a good degree of uniformity of practice within a particular church. If that requires pastoral sensitivity and defering to the pastoral needs of others - rather than just seeking to serve my own personal preferences - so be it.

You pose questions to Joe that he may wish to answer. But I think they are readily answerable. I think that Father David, or Fr. Scheemann, or Fr. Taft could give (or could have given) you specific criteria and norms of authentic tradition, organic development, pastoral sensitivity, hard spots and soft spots. And, with such criteria and norms, make quick work of the questions. In other words there is a sensible basis of what is being done - it is not mere personal preference.

Your questions btw have a bit of similarity to the question: if we wind up "brothers and sisters" then why not "Our Parent". The answer - from the article I linked for the HTC website - adhere to accuraccy in translation and good theology.

There are many different customs in our parishes. Some of these customs are probably examples of organic development. Others are not. Maybe someday all of the changes proposed by Father Petras will expand to the entire Byzantine Church. If they do we can then update the liturgical books to accommodate them.

Note that I have never once suggested that the revisions that what Father Petras has proposed be prohibited. I have argued numerous times that the individual celebrant be free to follow his recommendations. I have also argued that this same individual celebrant be free to follow the traditional Liturgy. The core of my argument has been that his suggestions not be mandated upon the entire Ruthenian Church, especially because it moves us further from the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

�Caprice� means impulsive. My charge that these proposed revisions are merely the personal preferences of a few is constant and longstanding.

Quite correct. No proof (either conclusive or inclusive) has been offered that these proposed revisions are organic. I have read every single one of Father Petras� columns on this subject and I see a great personal interest in revision but no great compelling theology behind it, or evidence that they are truly organic developments accepted by the wider Church.

No, not at all. We are part of the larger Byzantine Church. We must take into account possible organic development at that level as well as at our level. What appears to be legitimate organic development at our level (the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in America) must be tested against the larger Byzantine Church.

There is not a single other Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction that mandates any of the proposed revisions our Church is considering. At the very least that should indicate that mandates to revise are not appropriate.

The �heavy lifting� has not been done yet. Even Father Taft (who celebrates the traditional liturgy) notes that we are only at the beginning of an era of renewed scholarship on the Byzantine Liturgy. Russia is newly freed and has become a fertile ground for study. I respect Father Petras greatly and know his love for our Church. Nevertheless I do not think it wise for us to reform the Liturgy on the advice of any single or small group of individuals. I ask again, what other Byzantine Church has mandated these changes or is even contemplating mandating them?

I am not opposed to change. I am opposed to change before first restoring the fullness of our Ruthenian liturgical heritage. Our Church will needs a full celebration of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy on a weekly and festal basis, complete with deacons, and for at least a few generations, before we can begin to have full knowledge of our inheritance. What is the rush? Why not take the time to understand the wisdom of our inheritance before discarding it?

Freedom? How can one speak of freedom if one is prohibited from celebrating the fullness of the Ruthenian recension? It is that recension that is authentic. Local bishops may have the authority to prepare a translation of the Liturgy into the local language but I do not think it wise for them to take on the responsibility for a renovation of the Liturgy.

I disagree. Father Taft has made no formal proposals for similar changes across the Byzantine Church. He also celebrates the traditional Liturgy. He may very much support changes but he is certainly not advocating them. If anything, he is leaving them to the larger Byzantine Church. Father Schmemmann was a bit of a reformer, but I am unaware of him trying to convince anyone in the OCA to mandate these types of liturgical reform.

Even if these three individuals were united in affirming specific reforms (and they are not), would you really revise our whole inheritance upon the opinion of just three? Does the opinion of the larger body of Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) not matter at all? Why are they not mandating similar reforms? What harm do we do to Church unity by making unilateral revisions to the Liturgy? No there are

No, the way forward is to keep the standard of the Ruthenian recension and to live it. If the Spirit leads organic development across the Byzantine Churches we can document it in a few generations. If the Spirit is indeed leading the Church towards these revisions mandates will not be needed.

Administrator,

I am not proposing anything. I am only questioning it. My post was in response to the idea that the Byzantine Liturgical tradition was/is conservative. Whatever that means. But it wasn't. It was considered innovative, if not too progressive. Whatever that means.

We, as Eastern Christians, and our Latin friends who know us all too well, can state the following liturgical axiom:

WE BYZANTINES ARE LITURGICAL PACK-RATS.

We add, add, and add, and then we realize we have way too much on our plate. So, we abbreviate, abbreviate, and abbreviate until we do a little of each, but nothing in its fullest. Pious customs take priority over core rites and prayers.

THEN OUR LITURGY BECOMES AN ACCORDIAN.

Then like good Eastern brothers and sisters, we point fingers and accuse each other of not being traditional and/or authentic for either wanting to expand a bit here or retract a bit there. We love our liturgical "soft spots", but loathe to spend more time on those things that take made liturgy LITURGY in the first place.

WE LOOSE SITE OF THE (to use one theologian's phrase) WELLSPRING OF WORSHIP.


Joe