www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Status of Revised Divine Liturgy in 2024

I was telling a friend of mine from our parish about the history of the "teal book" - his family is cradle Catholic but they are deeply invested in the Byzantine church (since joining 2-3 years ago). He was, of course, completely unaware of the history of our teal book and as it came up, I told him as much as I could remember while we drank beer and blew up fireworks of an account as to how and why it came about. Today, I dove back in to the threads and accounts, and refreshed my memory as to it's unfortunate history. When I joined the Ruthenian church this topic really bothered me, and I was eventually able to "get past it" so to speak and today I really enjoy my parish and our priest, etc. I still say "for us men...." during the Creed and it's not like I've forgotten this topic, but I've not let it consume me.

But now, I have to wonder. Is it a fair assessment to say that the revisionists "won" in the sense that they've made this translation and the music that came with it normative, and most people who had a big problem with it have moved on or swallowed it, and new people who come into the church afterwards (like my friend) are none the wiser... and it's over? Will there ever be a movement to correct this in anyone's estimation?

I truly don't believe that a translation like this would have seen the light of day were it tried today. Especially with so many more people are of and vigilant against Critical Theory, the idea of neutralizing gender from the liturgy, much less the Creed, would be rightly shouted down by laity at the first glimpse. But, ironic as it can be, our church was way ahead of the times when it came to this! So here we are.

I really am only wondering this given the cultural climate we find ourselves in 2024, I think there would be a lot more openness to correcting this from laity if they were aware of how this happened. What are people's thoughts? The matter is done with, or there is still desire for improvement? Will we need a new Metropolitan? etc. Curious to hear what people think.

EDIT: I also forgot to ask, does anybody have a working link to Fr. Serge Keleher's PDF on the topic? I can't find a working link, including the one on this site, to save my life!

See attached.

Thank you! A lot of the links to these documents and conversations seem to have been removed across different sources, including the PDF you shared that used to be linked on this site. Fr. David's site doesn't have any mention, including his lengthy reply to Fr. Serge (which I used the Wayback Machine to access) or any of the links at Patronage of The Mother of God Church that you compiled afk. Really, other than a few pieces of commentary, the old conversations on this forum are really all that remain as documentation of what happened and why.

I'm not sure if that's deliberate or just 10-15 years of site maintenance on a topic that has died down. And that goes back to my original question... would we estimate that this matter is concluded, the case closed, as most traces of it ever happening are going by the wayside? In my mind I just decided to "get over it" but again, once I started telling my devoutly Byzantine friend about this, who had no idea and came into the Byzantine church long after these events, it kind of struck me that we may have reached a new status quo, but one that most people would not want to accept were they aware of it.

Case closed?

You are welcome. I did archive the old Patronage site before its revision and updating under new management.

The RDL -- Liturgicons and (Teal) People's Book -- officially and generally prevails, as expected. It is not uncommon to see variations in the rubrics. A notable one in the translation, however, that was prominent in discussions on this forum is the (for me banal, agenda-driven and theologically bereft) variants of "loves us all." On this see for example:

Matins and Divine Liturgy: Third S...26, 2022. St Michael's Cathedral Passaic [youtube.com] Fr. Jack Custer ( a member of the translation team) @~ 1:33:21 "our God Who Loves Mankind" and 1:55:44 " and He Loves Mankind"

and

Matins and Divine Liturgy: Fifth S...23, 2024. St Michael's Cathedral Passaic [youtube.com] Bishop Kurt @~ 1:49:49 "and Loves Mankind"

These are examples of a consistent usage by Fr. Jack and Bishop Kurt (who also uses the former term "ecumenical Pontiff"). I point this out to their credit, not criticism.

There are also accounts of the teal book only recently appearing in pews of parishes for whom the need for an abridged liturgy was given as one of its justifications.

JJP,

I think it’s unlikely that there will be any formal change in the next few decades.

Archbishop Skurka is disinterested in anything regarding liturgy. Two priests have told me that he has said he personally preferred the old text and music but that Bishop Pataki and the liturgy and music commissions worked really hard for a number of years and the bishops had to support their effort. Publicly he won’t talk with anyone complains about the RDL and its attendant music. But after 15 years he's not going to do anything. And, really, the people who couldn’t tolerate it are gone.

Bishop Burnett has been more open. He doesn’t really like it, but has said that there is nothing a single bishop can do about it. He has returned to using “man” and “mankind” as have several others priests (notably Fr. Custer). He has also allowed the New York parish to restore the Ruthenian rubrics of singing “Christ is Risen….” in all the usual places for the 40 days (Third Antiphon, Pre and Post-Communion, instead of “May our mouths be filled” as well as the “shine in splendor” at the dismissal. Maybe he will allow a creep back to the Ruthenian Liturgy.

Bishop Robert Pipta is a strong supporter of the RDL and especially of the “Teal Terror.” So he is never going to vote to restore the possibility of celebrating the Ruthenian Liturgy in its official form.

All in all, the RDL is both awful and unattractive. The text grates on the ear – especially that political left gender neutral language. The rubrics kill the flow when the singing stops so that the priest can recite his parts aloud (the leading member of the liturgy revision committee studied at Notre Dame, and really embraced theprinciples that created the RC Novus Ordo). Then there’s the music (Stuart Koel will be remembered forever for naming it the “Teal Terror”). Most of it is literally unsingable. And you’d swear that the people who wrote it didn’t have English as their first language.

All that said, there is some room for hope. I don’t have numbers, but it seems that the bulk of the parishes never adopted the new Holy Week, Pascha and new Funeral books. Or anything else coming out of Pittsburgh. And some parishes have dumped the Teal Terror for a text-only version. I have no idea what they use for music. I do know that many parishes simply don’t sing the Magnification and Irmos for the feasts and just sing “It is truly proper.”

But, yes, JJP, the Revisionists won. The Ruthenian Church does have a few parishes that are growing – but they are mostly in economically booming areas where “our people” are moving to. Maybe 30-40% of parishes are stable, but most are in sharp decline (with some down 75% from 10-15 years ago - mostly due to all deaths and no births, but the RDL surely hasn’t helped).

PS: Archimandrite Serge Keleher – Eternal Memory! [Your book remains the definitive scholarly critique of the RDL.]
PPS: Someone needs to start an online collection of the old liturgy. A lot of the singing was just beautiful.

I actually wasn't aware that usage of it is less than uniform today, that's nice to hear. The irony is that parishioners fighting to keep this critical (gender) theory out of schools would be horrified to learn where the teal terror came from (I still call it that). Most people I talk to have no idea. And my parish is growing with lots of new/young people (to your point, the area we live).

I'm reasonably certain the efforts of our Administrator and others would have much more fertile ground today. Or to put it another way, if this change was attempted today it would not fly.

Has Bishop Pipta ever defended it publicly anywhere to reference? I am always surprised to remember he was on the commission and wondered to what degree he supported it.

The MUSIC is the same as the 1906 Bokshai Prostopinije! The translations are not. To say the "music is unsingable" is incorrect. The problems lie in translating from the Slavonic or Greek, which use different syntax.

What the generations who grew up with from 1970-2005 was the Byzantine Liturgical Chant translation and modified music from the 1965 and 1970 music commissions, which consisted of several of our esteemed professor cantors. Yes, English was not their first language, but they certainly were familiar with 1906 Bokshai, 1925 Ratsin, 1944 Sokol music, which is almost note for note what the 2006 pew book uses. I have copies of all 4 and compared them when the pew book was officially promulgated. The 1965 committee was told to "simplify" the music while fitting it to the translation given them.

The real issue is with the less than prosaic translation that was clearly done by committee without much, if any, input from the music committee.

Why is the preservation of the 1906 Bokshai Prostopinije important? They don't exactly keep it pristine in Europe.

It seems to me that the priests and cantors who adapted our beloved prostopinije in the 1960s and 1970s did right.

The chant serves the text and not the other way around.

Over time the Slavs replaced the Greek chant given to them with their own, chant that fit their language and culture.

I think Byzantine Catholics in America should do the same.

Adapting the chant can make it useful to the English we speak and make it not clunky to our ears. That's the proper road ahead.

I don't have a vote, but if I did I'd go back to the old settings. They were not perfect, but neither were they clunky. They worked better for both Slav and non-Slav English-speaking Americans.

PS: Did you know that Stuart and his family were Jews who chose to be baptized into the Byzantine Catholic Church because they fell in love with our liturgy? After the RDL and the "teal terror" hit they left and joined the Melkites. Last I heard they were still there. I miss his lucid (if not caustic) posts here.

As someone who canonically transferred from the Latin to Ruthenian Church, I was unaware of these historical changes to the Liturgy, but I never felt it was modern or watered down or anything. Of course, anyone who lived through the changes is aware of them. I'm not sure how much of a difference they've made, honestly? Like any change, some people will love it, and some will hate it.

I think the more important question is, "does this change actually lead one *away* from Christ?" I don't think that can be said. A lot of the times, it seems there can be an attachment to antiquated words and rubrics that are kept just out of tradition, rather than considering whether they're actually edifying or appropriate any more.

I think a perfect example of this is Forgiveness Vespers. Outwardly it looks beautiful, but it's an obvious holdover from the days when everyone in the village went to the same parish and their lives were intertwined outside of church. That's just not the case anymore, so it feels very performative rather than fulfilling.

I would suggest that yes, especially in this day and age, inserting gender-inclusive language into the Divine Liturgy - and the Creed itself - can indeed have that effect. But that's arguable, and I think the bar you've set for what people should tolerate is exceedingly high. Much could be justified that nobody would favor.


I feel much better about my position now, having read this. Forgiveness Vespers at our parish is one of the most transformative experiences we have in the liturgical year. We have the tradition of beginning it right after the DL instead of a proper Vespers service and typically I am not in favor of tweaks like that, but in this case it is a blessing. Forgiving people close to you (including your own family!), and those you may not know or only know sligly... over. and over. and over. changes you, much like repeating the Jesus Prayer over and over. And being forgiven over. and over. and over. is similarly transformative. I've seen friendships mended in the middle of this service, tears flowing, etc... If this service feels performative to you, I would suggest it is not the service that is in need of re-examination.

I don't find the inclusive language so egregious as to be a distraction or diluting the Liturgy.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on Forgiveness Vespers. Just feels like saying words over and over to people I haven't wronged in the slightest. And if somebody has to wait until this service to ask for forgiveness or forgive someone else, then maybe the Christian faith as a whole isn't transformative for them. Jesus says to forgive "seventy times seven times," but I'm missing the part where He says wait until Forgiveness Vespers to do so.

Christ is in our midst!!

LionHippo44,

How do you know that someone you humble yourself before on Forgiveness Sunday is not someone you have offended without being aware? It reminds me of the prayers of St. Basil that mention offenses to the Lord "committed unknowingly"? The point of Forgiveness Sunday goes beyond the actual person to the idea that we humble ourselves completely, seeing the other as greater than ourselves. I have read that a person makes no progress in the spiritual life unless he can say that he is the least of all--and mean it! Unless I can see all others as greater than myself, I am still way off the mark.

This goes to how we become like Christ. He did not see Himself as greater than those with whom He walked the earth, though He was. God is Humble as His way of being right after being Love. If we claim to be "plunged into" (Baptized) Him, we must take on this attitude. We have to look in the mirror and say that there is NO ONE less than I.

I have read the Desert Fathers and remember a story where the elders forced a young man who was too proud to go around and do penance in front of each of the brethren. Forgiveness Sunday institutionalizes this practice for all of us. There is no one less than I; no one I may not have offended--even unknowingly.

One more thing. Liturgical rituals are meant to help us in the spiritual life. They may become routine, but that is our problem. Then we need to step back and look deep inside to make ourselves MEAN what we are saying. This life, as we say in my family, is NOT a dress rehearsal. This is it. When we meet the Lord for our personal judgement, He will ask us why we went through the motions and not meant what we were doing or saying.

Christ is in our midst!!

I had another thought about the practice of asking everyone at Forgiveness Sunday Vespers for their forgiveness. There is a spiritual exercise that came to mind that could explain this Byzantine Church practice. I call it "The Holy Face." Simply put, one looks at every person he/she encounters and sees Christ looking back. I have had some Lenten groups that I facilitated in the past where I proposed that we try this for a week and then discuss the reactions. One person's response sticks in my mind. She said it had changed her life and that she would never look at another person again without this thought.

The point was to see Christ and then respond to Him calling for a response to that person that only I could give at that moment. It could be as simple as a smile. It could be a simple greeting. It could be holding a door for someone coming through the same one I was passing through and being behind me. It's all about the simple things--seeing the Lord everywhere and in everyone. So asking everyone for forgiveness is actually akin to the Jesus Prayer--asking the Lord for forgiveness in everyone I see.

Well, I never said that you did. But many are on record saying so.


Theophan's responses were excellent and I have nothing to add, except that 1) nobody suggested to only forgive people at that specific service so I'm confused where that objection came from, and 2) I can't help wondering why you switched rights if you find services like this tedious and uninteresting. I would invite you to express these feelings to your priest once Lent approaches, he may help you discover more in the East than you thought you had already.

Christ is in our midst!!


jjp:

In support of what you say, may I relate that a Latin Cardinal made the statement back in the late 1960s and early 1970s--when I was an undergraduate English major and the argument for and against "inclusive" (feminist influenced) language began--that ONLY STANDARD ENGLISH could accurately convey the truths of the Catholic Faith. He is long gone and his words are long forgotten, but the truth still stands. Language both shapes what we communicate and shapes us in the process. The current controversy over pronouns is case in point. We were warned back then that we were headed down a slippery slope and that we were in danger of not being able to communicate at all by the political attacks on language. Now we have people trying to criminalize language errors to the point that many college students say they are afraid to speak their minds on many topics.