www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Byzantine Catholic Road to Orthodoxy

See--trying to teach me to suck eggs. He has no idea what I think about the RDL, or the personal steps I have taken because of my rejection of it.


Reading comp not a strong point. Certain reforms transcend the RDL and are legitimate. In particular, these would include the aural chanting of the Prayers of the Anaphora, for reasons dealing with catechesis and the full participation of the laity in their appointed liturgical role. So, do, do certain changes to the rubrics, which were not reflected in the 1965 translation. And I would include certain errors of translation, which, if not addressed well by the RDL still need to be addressed. Many of these reforms predate the RDL by decades, and were highlighted by, e.g., Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann in his books "Introduction to Liturgical Theology". "For the Light of the World" and "The Eucharist". One should never toss the baby with the bathwater.

The fundamental errors of the RDL are:

1. Not producing a full and accurate translation of the Slavonic Recension, in accordance with the mandate of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission.

2. Faulty and occasionally needless translations, veering from excessively literal to laughable paraphrases, and some outright boners.

3. A tin ear, lacking in beauty and awe.

4. Trying to do too much too quickly. There were three areas in which reforms were needed: text, rubrics, and music. By doing all three concurrently, the RDL ensured radical discontinuity and psychic shock. Stability is one of the hallmarks of good liturgy--the people have a right to know what to expect, they have a right to depend on what they have learned. On that basis, the first change ought of have been to the rubrics, which would have necessitated only minor changes to the texts (and mostly to the celebrants' parts). Changes to the music could have followed, but in an incremental manner--retain the music then in use, and add to it, rather than remove the existing music and replace it with something new (and to a large extent, artificial and archaic). Gradually add new settings and tones for the propers, the Cherubikon, the Koinonikon, the Theotokion, etc. Finally, changes to the people's parts of the text could have been introduced with proper preparation. Truth be told, the 1965 translation needed only a light hand, and some changes, such as substituting "Theotokos" for "Mother of God", "Orthodox" for "Christians of the True Faith" (are you that insecure that the word "Orthodox" still sticks in the craw?), would have been relatively painless.

Above all, the Metropolia should have avoided the top-down, authoritarian position it adopted (mainly at the instigation of one particularly authoritarian, top-down bishop) in favor of more flexible goals and timetables. And, most certainly, one form of music should never have been prescribed, but individual cantors should have been permitted to adapt the Prostopinje to meet the needs and capabilities of their particular congregations.

Now, this is a curious statement. Just when, in its entire history, did the Ruthenian Church in the United States ever use the real, full liturgy--meaning, for starters, the complete text of the 1942 Slavonic Recension, and following up, with a liturgical life that included, on a regular basis, the celebration of the Divine Praises as liturgical services in their own right? Did not our God-loving bishops consistently reject every effort by the Oriental Congregation to have them adopt the 1942 Liturgicon, first in Slavonic, and later in English? Did not our God-loving bishops also reject the call, included in the 1996 Liturgical Instruction, for the restoration of the Liturgy of the Hours?

In you mind, there was some halcyon day of Ruthenian liturgy in America, and I'm curious to know when you think that was.

I disagree. The Roman Catholics led by Pope Benedict XVI say the experiment didn't work. Or are you suggesting that after 40 years of hearing the Eucharistic Prayer taken out loud the Roman Catholics are better educated than they were before? But you forget that the Eucharistic Prayer isn't about education.

Mos of this much I agree with. Father Bryan always used to use "Orthodox" until Bishop Kudrick forbid him.

It is better to go back to even the abbreviated older form then keep the RDL. The texts are awkward and the music is clunky. When parishes got together for eparchial events we used to be able to SING. Now we can't. It sounds awful. Bishop Kudrick doesn't seem to notice. Or maybe he doesn't care?

But as I said before, it's a moot point. The bishops like the changes and don't plan to allow the real liturgy. I'm sure they sit around telling themselves how smart they are and how stupid the people all are. They've accused people who want the whole liturgy of being disobedient and told them to leave. We mostly stopped going to church altogether. Now we are visiting other Byzantine/Orthodox churches. Come and see Saint Sergius. That's how liturgy should be done. And they are not loosing people like the Ruthenians.

Well, in the UGCC, I know I saw Orthodox Christians used in the DL book at St. Josaphat, which in the Ukrainian Church is okay, I'm guessing, unless that changes, too.

I'm saying that I don't care what Roman Catholics do, I am only concerned for our own authentic Tradition, and that requires us to hear the Anaphora Prayers that we endorse with our "Amen". It unites the people with the celebrant in offering the Bloodless Sacrifice as the People of God.

Moreover, unless you have not been paying attention, I fail to see how your spiritual formation could NOT be enhanced by hearing the Anaphorae of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. Both are at the core of our theology and our spirituality, and--again, in accordance with Tradition--catechesis takes the form of mystagogy (initiation into the Holy Mysteries), and that takes place in the Liturgy. The Eucharistic prayer is about offering God what is God's, and receiving it back from Him. But it is also about teaching the faithful the fundamentals of their faith. And I can see from this conversation that a great deal of teaching remains to be done.


Better still to enhance that which was done in 1965 and complete the excellent work begun therein.


Actually, now that Bishop Andrew has gone to a place of light and peace, more and more parishes are breaking away and doing their own thing--the survival instinct will out. In true Ruthenian fashion, the problem is likely to work itself out by abandoning the RDL without ever acknowledging that we have done so. And nil desperandum--some of us have been working hard to produce a superior alternative.


I don't need to do that, I have a perfectly good Melkite parish where the problem of books is moot--we don't use any. Everybody knows the Liturgy, and everybody sings. As I said, I really don't need to be taught how to suck eggs.

Everybody uses "Orthodox", except the Ruthenians. Stiff-necked bunch, don't want people confusing them with "Dem Ortodox". Maybe once all the people affected by the schisms go to their final reward, we can get away from this nonsense.

Stuart, your points are making me consider the possibility of going into another jurisdiction... Or at least, find a Ruthenian parish that restored much of the practices you brought up.

I only have one UGCC parish in another end of the state; a Maronite parish (which a fellow Ruthenian parishioner said was latinized); and I've several Orthodox parishes in my town. And I've been filling in any gaps, by going to the Orthodox parishes for other services; and using the Byzantine Daily Office, through ecpubs.

I'm not really bothered by Ruthenians not saying "Orthodox" in the liturgy -- excepting when they criticize those of us who do.

Neither am I. And I don't have any problems hearing Orthodox, either. when I hear the words used in Vespers, at the local Orthodox parish.

@Booth,
You must be right that there are many more readers than posters on forums. I was one of them until just now on this site and forum for a loong time. But now in good conscience, and since you addressed "us", I had to register so that I can express to you that I am grateful for your post on this topic and I think you hit the nail on the head with it!

Stuart - you certainly know how Rusnaks think - be they BCC or Orthodox!

I couldn't stop laughing at what I bolded. In much the same way ACROD gradually shed Latinizations over the past fifty years - particularly under Metropolitan Nicholas - without ever acknowledging that was actually going on.

A most pithy observation on your part. Thanks, you made my day.

I dunno, when I attended a Vigil DL at St. Josaphat, they seemed to have Latinized their DL, half of it was recited, Fr. Bohdan wasn't using a censer during the liturgy, nor his deacon. Certainly was a change to the Ukrainian Catholic liturgy from what I remember. Back when Fr. Gribik was there, the whole DL was sung except for the Communion Prayer and Homily (and sung more beautifully than in the Ruthenian Church, mind you, seems like that's why the UGCC was doing so well), and he did use incense. Boy, how times have changed there...sad.

This is a very interesting discussion of the Liturgy!

My question is ... Jesus Christ was not Eastern Orthodox or Latin Catholic. Would he care? He was the one who asked the Samaritan woman for water.

I agree that restoration of the Hours and the full liturgy without Latinizations is a good thing - it makes people choose - and be aware of their choice. I also love beauty and fullness in worship which is why if I heard another guitar mass I was going to throw up on them or break up their guitars.

I am not sure Jesus Christ would care if one was Ruthenian Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Episcopalian for that matter (even though I do care about these details from my own theological perspective)

@haydukovich: you got me thinking "El Kabong," after mentioning guitar break ups . I gotta love syndicated television

other than that, well said, brother.

Well, unless he watches WWE Monday Night RAW (or used to like I did), you'll know that there was a wrestler by the name of Jeff Jarrett that broke guitars and slammed them to death. But that's a different story.

Anyway, back on topic, ahem. It does seem like there's a fairly decent reason that some Eastern Churches are "Latinizing" their DLs a bit, since it seems like there will be those from the Western Rite attending a Byzantine DL from time to time, and they don't want to make them feel left out. However, I still feel the best way to experience the Eastern Rite is to actually have a DL that actually carries on the Byzantine tradition from beginning to end, with no "Latin Hiccups" in between. Guess it ain't like the old days anymore, which is sad.