www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology In praise of Roman Catholics

I think that many of the Orthodox who critique New Skete's liturgical usage haven't been there. It's actually a rather Orthodox place, and the liturgy is served beautifully there .. in my opinion what New Skete has done is closer to what a liturgical reform should look like (albeit in a monastical rather than a parochial setting) than what happened in the Latin Rite, because the "aggiornamento" that New Skete has engaged in is less about "updating" to the contemporary world than it is about scraping away additives that have accreted over time but which can obscure the essence of the liturgy. Now, reasonable minds can -- and do -- differ about that, but the result, in my view, has been fairly positive.

In any case, New Skete is really being utilized as a kind of liturgical laboratory within the OCA, protected by the Metropolitan, but not as an engine for change within the Church in any way. Therefore I would have to agree with the point about "mandating" ... New Skete is allowed to do what it does, but nobody is mandating that the other OCA parishes follow this or that use of New Skete. Similarly, there are varying usages relating to the taking of the anaphora aloud and so forth -- even within the OCA. And as we all know there are various usages within Orthodoxy between different Orthodox jurisdictions, including some fairly significant ones such as the differences between the slavic and greek/arab usages relating to antiphons, the melkite/antiochian practice relating to processions, the practice of chanting the akathistos during Lent, etc. Not very many in Orthodoxy worry about these differences, really. I would think there would be room within Eastern Catholicism for these kind of differences as well .. for example between the Melkites and the Ruthenians, just as there are, say, between the Russians and the Antiochians on the Orthodox side, or even as between New Skete and everyone else. It's still recognizable as essentially Orthodox despite the differences in use, as it should be.

Lance,

I respect your disagreement with me. I stand by my comments and believe them to be true. I do not think that Fr. Taft would be insulted to learn that I consider him to be influenced by the Post-Vatican II liberalism in the Latin Church.

With all due respect to you, the deacons and deacon candidates and many of our younger priests (all of whom I admire greatly), all of you have been formed in a seminary where liturgical revisionism has been taught as something sorely needed by our Ruthenian Church. I have great respect for those on our liturgical commission leading this revisionism, but they are wrong. Our Church should not create another way by revising our inheritance, certainly not without the consensus and cooperation of all the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension, and certainly not until we have fully restored what we have received. Why do so many oppose restoration and working with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy to determine if reforms are indeed the will of the Spirit?

Lance wrote: [W]hen it is shown that we are not doing anything they aren't then you want us to keep doing what we been doing just because it is what we have been doing.

The proposed mandates are definitely not something that the Orthodox are doing. We should not mandate anything that the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy is not also mandating.

I have never suggested that we just keep on doing what we are doing. I have always promoted the return to the traditional liturgy and the restoration of our received inheritance (namely, the books published by Rome since they are common to all the Churches that make up the Ruthenian recension). The parishes who have restored the traditional liturgy are the ones with excellent prayer lives. The Holy Spirit who guided our fathers in Orthodoxy to form our inheritance didn�t make a mistake that a dozen Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics in the United States need to correct.

Lance wrote: If you like the liturgy the way it is that is fine but I don't think it fair to libel the proposed changes bad because they are not what you prefer.

With all due respect an accusation of libel is a poor response to someone with a deeply held belief that is different than your own.

Where is the theology to back up the need for these proposed revisions? To date I have not seen a single theological presentation that addresses each of the changes that are expected to be mandated (and indeed, some of the rubrical changes are already mandated in some eparchies). You accuse me of simply preferring the received liturgical tradition over the revisions, yet those who are proposing the revisions have not offered our Church the theology to support the necessity of these revisions. There are many in our Church who believe that the proposed changes are nothing more than the personal preference of a few in our Church. I�m sorry, my friend, but your position is illogical and unsupportable.

Again I ask, why are these revisions so important that they need to be mandated?

Where is the theology to support the necessity of these liturgical revisions?

Why are these revisions so necessary that we must remove ourselves from the rest of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension by acting alone as a single Church?

Admin

The sui iuris Church of Presov has embarked on its own path, too, having removed the "Glory... now and ever... Holy Immortal, have mercy on us; Holy God (repeat)" from the Trisagion as sung in the Divine Liturgy.

They are of the Ruthenian Recension, and unless they consulted with the previous staff of the American Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission who were about to make this same change in the USA (which some parishes actually did and probably are still doing), they did this unilaterally and got this change approved by Rome (in conflict with the Roman edition of the Ruthenian books).

Who knows, maybe they got the idea from our Liturgical Commission!

Lance and Admin, there are good points with both of your positions.

I must point out that Taft's comments on the New Skete usage were directed specifically for that community and its unique liturgical life. Any application beyond New Skete is not really correct nor would I believe that Archimandrite Robert would intend them to be taken that way. Mateos, well, that is an entirely different story.

Archimandrite Robert is a scholar, not a one-man unilateral liturgical commission. And I might say perhaps the greatest living scholar with respect to his knowledge of the Divine Praises/Divine Office in not only the Byzantine but other Eastern Christian traditions. I still am amazed by the readability and yet deep scholarly content of his "iturgy of the Hours in the East and West."

The commission in Pittsburgh, not Archimandrite Robert, is responsible for the particular developments and proposed revisions to the Ruthenian liturgy.

The Synodal UGCC Liturgikon of 1988 provides for the full celebration of the Liturgy in accord with the Ordo, all three antiphons in full with the option of the typical Psalms, litany for the catechumens, rubrics for opening and closing Holy Doors, etc. all in the promulgated altar Liturgikon.

It would seem that the Ruthenian approach to abbreviations are not quite congruous with the path that other Slavic Greek Catholic churches are currently taking, at least not the UGCC or Russian Catholics who seem to be gravitating towards a greater degree of compliance with their respective Ordos.

I wholeheartedly second Brendan's post. While definitely a model of innovation, New Skete has a unique and quite full liturgical life. Their Horologion and Psalter are in use by both Orthodox and Greek Catholics and are better than some Greek Catholic translations of texts in use. I believe the OCA has really benefitted from the witness of New Skete. The OCA must not be too disappointed with New Skete since neither of the last two Metropolitans have suppressed any of the liturgical usage there.

New Skete, at least in my reading of its situation, does not see itself as the center of some kind of liturgical revolution or attempts to push its usage on any other community. Rather I think it sees itself as a community of believers abiding in love as much as humanly possible.

I don't think Greek Catholics have much room to criticize a place like New Skete considering the dismal liturgical life of many Greek Catholic parishes. They celebrate the Liturgy and the Hours with great affection. Some Greek Catholics should take notice of this devotion to a fuller liturgical life.

Interesting. Didn't hear it this way in Mal'cov, Bratislava, or Prague last summer, but did hear it this way in Budapest.

Admin,

Hear! Hear!

FrDeaconEd:

You know I might be in driving distance of you. What parish are you in? Do you have a website? I go to Our Lady of the Assumption in Claremont.

OLA website:
http://www.olaclaremont.org/

I have been curious about going to an Eastern Catholic Church service, perhaps if you are close by me one day we can meet and I can learn about your church's liturgy and tradition?

Peace in Christ,

BradM

Brad,

Our website is currently down -- we're changing providers. However, we are within driving distance. Go south on the 57 to Nutwood (the Cal State Fullerton offramp). Turn left to Placentia (2 lights) and turn left. Turn right on Madison and the parish is about 3/4 mile on the left. Divine Liturgy is at 11:00 a.m. every Sunday (with one exception -- Palm Sunday). The 1st and 3rd Sundays are primarily English with some Arabic while the others are primarily Arabic with some English.

Let me know when you plan on coming!

Edward, deacon and sinner

I can come this sunday! This is the one primarily in English correct?

I think I know the name of your parish because I was looking at all the closest Eastern Catholic Churches within 45 min drive of my house. Is your parish named 'Holy Cross Melkite-Greek Catholic Parish'?

BradM

I heard it this way at the Presov Cathedral's Sunday 10 a.m. Liturgy three weeks ago. The vicar for Rusyn faithful, Fr. Petro Pavel Hal'ko OSBM, was the celebrant, and the cathedral choir sang the responses. (Of course, it was Pentecost Sunday so it was "Jelicy vo Christa..." rather than "Svjatyj Boz~e...")

However, at Liturgy the next day at the Basilian Fathers' monastery in Presov (they are quite conservative there), they sang it the normal way.

Diak, this is also my understanding, and what we have seen is not "congruous" with what other Churches are doing.

I think there is also another possibility (which I mentioned on this forum last year).

I have visited a number of Churches, and glanced at their pew book. For example, a Greek Orthodox Church here in town has a pew book that does not contain certain litanies, because (with the blessing of the local Greek Metropolitan I'm sure) they are not normally taken on a Sunday. A pew book containing pages of text not normally taken will prove very difficult for an 'average parishioner' or visitor to follow. It is quite acceptable to provide a pew book, which is easy to use, and may omit prayers taken silently, or not at all. But variations in the pew book did not upset me at all... In fact there will be variations of observance from place to place, and time to time, and these are fine.

However, I would hope that if I was able to enter the altar of the Greek Church, I would find the Liturgicon that the priest was given at his ordination, and I would find those prayers and litanies printed in it, even if they are not normally taken or heard by the local congregation. In fact except for the odd translation and choice of words ('you' or 'thee' for example), I would expect it to be nearly identical to the Liturgicon I was given, and which is found in the altar where I serve. The official texts of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and of the other Liturgies in use, are what unites us and are a real unity (even if other levels of unity escape us yet).

Pew books [designed to facilitate congregational participation] are many and varied, and there is no harm if they offer some variation of content. Here there is great scope.

But the text of the official Liturgikon is too important to be revised lightly. I wonder if even a Church Synod has this authority? The Liturgikon is an icon of Church unity, it is the standard of observance, it is the voice of God, and not the property of men. It is the heritage of the whole Church, and it must be guarded by them all (not merely bishops or committees, but by them most of all). It is a standard by which we and our worship shall be judged, and we can lay hold of no contemporary standard by which to pass judgement on it. In its careful translation, we must reverently give attention to scrupulous accuracy, faithfully presenting a text from one language in another one. It is not wise or possible to omit anything, revise the content, or consider ourselves wiser than the tradition that brought the text to us in the form it has. The Liturgikon exists in its authoritative form in the Slavonic eddition promulgated by Rome. Every translation of it must be as exact and as faithful as we can make it, resisting every temptation to improve or change it. Even the smallest variation will do violence to the integrity of the text of the Liturgy, and do harm to its nature as an icon of unity. In fact, such a revised or incomplete text would seal division, an unworthy corruption of its sublime vocation.

I suspect that what we have seen, and what has been distributed for our comments, and what has been the cause of some lively discussion in this place, has been a 'pew book' containing only some of the new translations. We have not yet been circulated with a copy of the Liturgikon, from which this new 'pew book' had been prepared. In that case, some of the abbreviations and ommissions might be forgiven.

I understand from the discussion in this place, that some of these changes have already been begun in other eparchies? I have never celebrated any Liturgy except the red Liturgikon published in Pittsburgh in the '60s. I have attended Liturgy in other eparchies where some of these innovations have been already published, and Metropolitan Judson began to use some of the forms in his own Liturgy. But they were never authorized for use elsewhere here. Perhaps because they were strange to me, I did not like them, and I do not feel they are improvements at all to the published Liturgikon we use.

But of course, the real issue, is even in the circulated 'pew book with music', it is not just a question commenting on why certain prayers or litanies have been left out, or certain new rubrics have been included. Some omissions and selections can be expected in a user-friendly pew book. But the circulated texts contain some questionable 'liberal' interpretations of texts. There are real concerns about accurate translations, even in the portions of text that are provided in the sections circulated for comment in the 'pew book'. That is worrying. To see it first in the proposed 'pew book' with music was unfortunate.

But perhaps it has been better to see them in such a provisional form on photocopied paper, and to have the opportunity speak and comment? I was told (unofficially) that the texts are still being revised and reconsidered.... if that is true, it is encouraging to me. I hope the next draft that is circulated for comment, will be more clearly presented and explained (i.e. explaining that it is meant [as I suspect] as a congregational pew book, or if it is the official text of a liturgikon) and will address some of the issues that have been raised here and elsewhere in terms of the new Roman guidelines for translation of Liturgical texts.

Illustrating my point about unity. If we choose to change our Liturgikon will we be another variant form? Will we be one Church? Our Liturgical observance will unite or divide us, as we choose. The only hope for unity, is the faithful use of the normative Roman Slavonic Liturgikon as a standard.

The publishing of a pew book is likewise a task not to be taken lightly. If we look at the example of our American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox brothers and sisters, circa 1988 they published a large, hardbound pew book that was easily 2.5 times the size of our present Divine Liturgy pew books (the Levkulic blue or crimson one, not the old paper gray book). It contained a lot of music (mostly English), and probably about as much liturgical text for fixed and movable feasts as our present pew books do. Even a few of the most popular paraliturgical hymns (but not an extensive selection by any means). Most parishes, as far as I know, invested quite a bit of money to purchase a full supply of this new book for their church/pews. Some parishes did not get the new books and continued to use, for example, our pew books with the filioque and commemoration of the Pope whited out.

Through the years I didn't hear many positive comments about the new books -- they were very hard to follow, the print quality was rather poor (dot-matrix, mostly) and the music was nearly unsingable.

About ten years later, a new ACROD pew book appeared, and parishes were again expected to replace their entire stock of books. Some of them did this. Some of the other parishes that had held out using our book have now upgraded -- presumably because this newer book is much better. But when I think of how much money a small, financially just-making-ends-meet parish can expect to spend on pew books, even if you do a new book just once a generation, make sure you do it right the first time.

The Levkulic books have served us well, but are we to expect a never-ending stream of incremental "improvements" that will necessitate a huge investment on the part of the eparchies and the parishes? I hope not!

Admin,

"Lance wrote: If you like the liturgy the way it is that is fine but I don't think it fair to libel the proposed changes bad because they are not what you prefer.

With all due respect an accusation of libel is a poor response to someone with a deeply held belief that is different than your own."

Apologies, libel was a typo and should have been label.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance