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

We are very much in agreement. This forum was a beacon of truth at the time and I'm so grateful to it for this among many other things. It's actually so sad and ironic that of all the things for our Ruthenian church to be proactive and ahead of mainstream culture about, it would be..... gender-inclusive language. It's the main reason I brought this thread up to begin with... at the time it seemed almost academic and and oddity to most people, so it was hard for many to understand the problem. I am very much convinced such a change would scandalize a much greater amount of parishioners now than it did then, to the point that it would not be accepted by the laity, given how mainstream this particular attack on God's order has become.

That so many parishioners now don't even know that it happened is also a shame (and is exactly what was intended). They have a good instinct not to "find reasons to be upset about things" that until they become aware, never knew existed in the first place. I think it is important to keep this discussion current, less our liturgy continues to get chipped away at slowly over time. The enemy is playing the very longest of games here.

Christ is in our midst!!

The "inclusive language" argument was lost in the Latin Church long ago. We now have our third liturgical edition and some parts are difficult to read aloud. The first steps were for "inclusive language" and then trying to find common texts with our Protestant brethren. Then Pope St John Paul 2 issued translation norms to bring English editions back closer to the Latin. Now we've got a lexicographical mess. We've also had our translation of the Bible done over to conform to the translation directives so as one priest said "we have translation du jour."

Are we talking about the liturgical books, the prayer books?

As a newer member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, I am unaware of exactly what went into the development and promulgation of this "teal terror." I recall often hearing my priest use the older language ("mankind," etc.), but we do for the most part use the teal book for our liturgies. Can anyone give a general overview of what exactly the change was and how it occurred? Was it just inserting gender-neutral language, or was there more to it?

Christ is in our midst!!

miroslav_jc,

Welcome to the forum. We hope your time with us is spiritually beneficial.

You may find on the forum a working translation of the Divine Liturgies of both St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. They are a work of love by members of the Ruthenian Catholic Church and this forum. Many have worked on these translations which you may find in the liturgy section in a locked thread. Go to Mysteries, go to the first topic, and in that you will find the locked thread.

The problem and objections that many Ruthenian Catholics have with the "teal terror" is that it is a very real break with the tradition of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The translation in the "teal terror" was made using a Greek text of these liturgies of a later time than the tradition of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The Ruthenian texts were compiled and published by Rome in the early 1940s but were ignored in the preparation of the texts used now in the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

This is the understanding that I have been given by members of the forum who are also members of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

Bob
Moderator

Bob, thank you for the warm welcome.

I have spent some time reviewing various threads on this forum and found a lot of interesting information. In case anyone else stumbles upon this thread and wants to learn more, I'll post a few links to get people started. I have not read through all the on-topic material (there is a lot), but enough to get the gist of it I think.

- Fr. Serge Keleher's book on the RDL: [available near the start of this thread]
- RDL Criticisms by John Vernoski (Administrator of this forum): https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...how-the-rdl--violates-vatican-directives
- Discussion of RDL Criticisms by Fr. Serge Keleher: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...leher-studies-on-the-byzantine-liturgy-1
- Confusion on the Promulgation of the RDL: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...ivine-liturgy-of-the-ruthenian-recension
- Unofficial Study Texts: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...f-the-ruthenian-divine-liturgies-chr-bas

One thing that I have been unable to find is any sort of official liturgical reform history or responses to the many criticisms of the Revised Divine Liturgy published by the Metropolia. While Fr. David, who I gather to have been the head of the liturgical committee that developed the RDL, has responded on these forums, he seems to have been acting in an unofficial capacity in doing so. And aside from his messages, there is nothing else I have found. Given the seeming credibility of the RDL's criticisms (which I am admittedly not knowledgeable enough to verify many of the claims made), the lack of official responses or reasonings do not bode well for the Metropolia. Additionally, some posters referenced potential appeals to Rome. Whether any were made or what their results were is also something I have not found.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can point me in the direction of official accounts of why the RDL was promulgated as it is? Am I correct in saying that Fr. David's posts were not official responses from the Metropolia?

Regards,
A servant of Christ

Christ is in our midst!!

I wonder how the translation work done by members of the forum and posted on this thread, compares to the recent book reprinted from the late 1930s.

Miloslav,

There was no official response to the questions raised. I personally know several people who wrote complaint letters to their bishops. Archbishop Basil of Pittsburgh (now deceased) supposedly sent courteous responses acknowledging receipt of the letters but offered no actual response. Bishop Andrew of Passaic (head of the Liturgical Revision Commision and now deceased) sent very harsh responses to letter writers condemning them for questioning a bishop and calling them to obedience. But that was very much his nature (he was a "pay, pay and obey" type of bishop). It's possible the other bishops at the time (Bishop John in Parma and Bishop William in Phoenix) sent responses, but I have no knowledge of that.

The whole Revised Divine Liturgy is still problematic and will remain that way. The "Teal Terror" is still terrorizing. But it is unlikely that anything will be done. At public events, Bishop Robert keeps saying "Invite! Invite! Invite!" to counter the rapid decay of our Church. But he (and the other bishops) don't seem to understand that people don't find the Revised Divine Liturgy with the modifications modeled after the Latin Novus Ordo rubrics, secular academic gender-neutral language and clunky music to be very attractive. Still, we do the best that we can.

TR

TR,

Is it possible that an "indult" can be requested for the pre-RDL, similar to those in the Latin Rite requesting worship in accordance with the 1962 Mass?

My question is didn’t some time ago the Byzantine catholic liturgy changed
Because in the 1980’s I went to a Byzantine church once in Orlando fl it sounded and looked a lot like the Eastern Orthodox and later on in the 1990’s
I visited a Byzantine catholic liturgy at you chapel of st Michael’s in west Patterson nj and the hymns were different and sounded different
I am nuts or was their a revision in the liturgy somewhere between the the early 1980’s and the 1990’s

I argue that dropping for us men makes it a completely different creed as it is not the creed delivered to us from the Fathers. It is a grave error that needs to be corrected. I plan to bring it up to Bishop Artur when he comes to our parish picnic in October. I'll fill you in on how the conversation goes then.

Dropping "men" from the creed is a major theological issue that has been brought up many times before in both East and West. I myself cannot bring myself to say the creed during the Liturgy without add "men."

I think the greater problem has to do with governance because it was a major upheaval to switch the new translation, and it would be a major upheaval to change again. No individual bishop in the Ruthenian church is going to scrap the Teal Terror without support and consent from all the others. Even Bishop Kurt, who reportedly does not like the translation and tolerates the use of older language ("mankind" vs "us all", etc.) has never advocated publicly for replacement or to use the older translations, as far as I am aware.

Maybe the best solution is a grassroots effort. At this point, if a parish used exclusively the older translations, I wonder whether they would be disciplined.

Hopefully something will be officially stated eventually. It is not a good impression if there is a sizeable (or at least vocal) portion of the flock that is raising an issue about the liturgy and there has been no official response.

Language chosen to be as inclusive as possible without preserving the faith would seem to be a serious issue. Similar to what EasternChristian19 is planning, I may ask Bishop Kurt when he visits my parish. At least to show him that this remains an issue that he would have support addressing. Even if not to change anything, perhaps just offering some reasoning for why certain things were changed and officially dialoguing would help us all move forward together.

P.S. In case my comments make it seem like I am much more against the RDL than I actually am: I simply recognize that there are legitimate concerns that seem to be being ignored, and I don't think that's a healthy way to pastor a church.

Christ is in our midst!!

EMagnus,

I have read that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council attached severe anathemas to the Creed so that anyone who ADDED to or SUBTRACTED from it would be condemned forever. How that works out now is above my pay grade, but it calls into question who keeps the Faith passed to us and who does not.

That is also my understanding. What bothers me the most is that there is no theological justification given for removing the word. If you're going to be altering the traditional language of the creed, I think you ought to have some burden to prove that it is theologically necessary to better convey some truth in the original.

Regardless of where you come out on the Filioque, there is at least some theological reasoning given for its addition, not simply stating that it sounds better.