www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL 8 Year Anniversary

Good one!

Interesting. I have never given much attention to that document. It did not carry much authority....and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Churches of Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Czechoslovakia were not represented. But may I ask......what was the basis of the criticism levied at you.

Exactly, that is why it does not make much sense to denounce the entire subject defined as 'the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian churches' without equivocation, as you have done. I could understand disagreeing with various methods - which I do - but not the entire idea.

Really? Where have I done that? I do not support ecumenism. But I never told you my outlook on ecumenism. And yet you came out in full attack mode. Perhaps you'll start a thread about it. Otherwise, please stop with your insulting assumptions.

I apologize for being partly responsible for taking this thread so far off topic. I think the issue of ecumenism would make for a lively thread. I believe that discussions regarding unity and doctrinal issues can be fruitful. I am against participation in groups such as the WCC and the NCC. But the subject can get quite nuanced, and I must admit, I am probably less prone to most issues of ecumenism than most. I don't apologize for that.

Having said that, I would like to go back on topic. I was Roman Catholic for 38 years and Ruthenian Catholic for a number of years until the RDL was mandated. I was having some doctrinal issues at the time and had one foot in the Orthodox Church. But the RDL was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back....especially the gender neutral nonsense. I took my family to Holy Orthodoxy. I made many wonderful friends amongst the clergy and laity within the Eastern Catholic Church (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Melkite). I am also curious as to how the RDL has affected the Ruthenians after eight years. I am also curious as to whether any of the other Eastern Catholics followed suit with a similar type of revision to the Liturgy.

I apologize as well, but I know a good number of holy men and women who's life sacrifice was for the 'good kind' of ecumenism, not the bad WCC/NCC Marxist type.

Your history is filled with the best kind of ecumenism in the most personal sense, you as a person in the image and likeness of God carry the history and Tradition of the Romans and Ruthenians with whom your were in fellowship and now more perfectly the Orthodox Church. Instead of being against the concept, you are living it the best way you can. That's all anyone is asked to do, how and where we reach as individuals vary.

Well, being an outsider, for me the RDL issue is a case in point of what happens when the Church Slavonic falls into disuse . . . (The UGCC employs a kind of "cross" between Church Slavonic and modern Ukrainian.)

Apart from gender neutrality, what else about the RDL is controversial?

Again, for someone like me, to pray in English would already be controversial in and of itself . . .

Alex

Basically the whole "Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past" part of the document.

In various statements I've read on the subject, lack-of-obedience-to-Rome is frequently mentioned. Note of course that opinions vary about whether that's an issue or not (contrast for example Recluse's posts about the RDL with Dostojno Jest's "as long as Ruthenians refuse to act like adults Rome will issue directives each time they misbehave".)

Interesting. For me (also an outsider wrt the RDL) the issue would be not praying in the vernacular (be that English or whatever language).

To each his own . . .

I'd rather pray in Church Slavonic than in English because if Slavonic was good enough for St Andrew the Apostle - it should be good enough for us all!

Alex

All Apostles spoke Russian and prayed in Church Slavonic! Is outrage to pray in English!- Father Vasiliy Vasileivich, COROC spokesman.

Apologies for the slight drift off topic...

The above UGCC comment is true (after a fashion) where the translation of Patriarch Joseph is still in use. Unfortunately, there is a a constant drive to make the Basilian (aka 'Synodal') translation normative across the UGCC. While it may be a more 'modern' Ukrainian translation, is it not a better one - on grounds. That said, the Basilian translation into Ukrainian is not as bad as the RDL.

When do you think "Circular of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church to Ruthenian Ordinaries" (Prot No. 1219/28, Rome, September 10, 1941) will be followed? The promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy strictly prohibits following the 1941 promulgaton of the ordinary form of the Ruthenian liturgy.

Or is the ordinary form so awful that it cannot be allowed?

Don't you think relying on directives from the Vatican to maintain your Eastern patrimony is part of the problem?

Personally, I do believe that's a factor.

There's a significant distinction between saying "I agree with Rome that we should [delatinize, not use inclusive language, etc]" and saying "We should [delatinize, not use inclusive language] because Rome said so."