www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Proposed Text of the Byzantine Liturgy

I've sorta got the opposite question. What is the point of these litanies? Admittedly, I don't have first hand experience of your liturgy, but have heard and seen recordings of it. I personally feel that these litanies disrupt the flow of the service. Start, stop, start, stop, start, stop...something like that. So, rather than questioning their elimination, I'd like to know why they were there, what purpose they served, how they tied the antiphons together, and why you and others think they should be retained?

Admin.,

I guess I should have stated more clearly the above text may or may not be the final approved version. It is a compilation from the texts I cited along with changes that, as far as I know, were apporved. It is my best attempt using the texts I have, I do not have the final version which as you say is not the original version sent over. The final version sitting in the chancery was approved by Archimadrite Taft. Mind you it does not bear his signature but he is the one who approved it for rubber stamping by the Prefect. I learned this from Fr. Steven Hawkes-Teeples, director of the deacon program and professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

These litanies are what ties everything together and what provides both the flow of the Divine Liturgy and the transition from one part to the next. They call to us �again and again, in peace let us pray to the Lord� and tell us to refocus our attention on what is being proclaimed and celebrated. The give us a moment to consider what has just been sung and to prepare ourselves for what is to come. Without them the liturgy appears a bunch of disjointed hymns (especially from the flow of the antiphon melody to the music for the Hymn of the Only Begotten Son and back to the antiphon melody). To see this celebrated with a proper deacon is to see a beautiful thing. Find a local Byzantine parish (Catholic or Orthodox) and attend the liturgy and it will jump out at you.

I suggest that, since these litanies have been long part of our tradition, those who are proposing the elimination of these litanies ought to be able to concretely justify their reasons for removing them. I have not seen their reasoning, complete with a full historical understanding of how they developed, why it was wrong to add them, and why they should be eliminated. If one is simply arguing for a date in history when the Byzantine liturgy was perfect one could equally argue that Chrysostom should never have edited Basil�s liturgy. Or perhaps one should move the Only-Begotten Son and mandate it be sung prior to the liturgy as mandated by Emperor Justinian?

My whole point is that we, as a Church, should not be unilaterally revising the liturgy without a full understanding of the enormity of such changes and the complete collaboration of all of our Byzantine brothers and sisters.

Quoth the Adminstrator:


Amen!!! Well said.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I too am shocked that Father Archimandrite Robert Taft approved of this Liturgy. I always respected him, but he is a historian of Liturgy.

I noted, during a recent visit to Rome, I attended a Liturgy celebrated by Father Robert, and not one of these revisions were included. No traditionally silent prayers were taken aloud, no litanies omitted, and the Liturgy was carefully celebrated according to the Liturgicon.

I understand he (and the congregation) made quite a lengthy list of suggestions for improvement. Have these been taken up by the scholars entrusted with this task?

Elias

Apart from the very thorny question of "inclusive language", which I fear to comment upon there are also other serious questions.

But the question of "inclusive language" is decided in the decree "Liturgicam Authenticam". I think we should consider carefully what we read there.

I think the revisionist Liturgy, and much of what has been produced by the seminary and the nuns violates the spirit of that instruction.

The "inclusive" question is a symptom. My feeling is that a translation should tell me as much as possible about the meaning of the original text. Where the text is ambiguous, the translation should convey this. (The translation of "o vs'ich i za vsja" is an example). We must avoid "interpreting" or suggesting meanings not justified by the text.

The translation must be accurate and consistent always. Translating "Vladyko" as "Father" is a clear example (there are many, many, many), of translations which are a clear change of meaning. This is unacceptable, and render the entire translation suspect. It is unscholarly and unworthy. "Vladyko" is a title for God the Trinity. Father is clearly only a title for the 1st person of the Trinity. This could be considered heretical, and alters the theology of the Liturgy. I would agree with the esteemed Administrator, that it is God (not the priest) who blesses. This change is a clericalism, and a Latinization...

but then... I return to my general criticism.

I am disappointed in the work of the committee, and now that it has been distributed for comment, I do hope that scholars and interested persons will speak up and be heard, before a decision is made.

Elias

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

These two threads are about as perfect as you can get. They incorporate both religion and politics and then the Heiromonk throws in sex too (i.e inclusive language, the nuns)!

Anyway, there is only one change I really would have liked even without the inclusion of the Orthodox. That is, I would have liked a revision of the lectionary. The three year cycle of readings as utilized by the Roman Catholics is a very good idea. It saddens me to realize that some of the greatest gospel and epistle readings will never be heard by the masses.

John

The abbreviations of the LItanies do rather get to me in this proposed Liturgy as they tend to serve as transitions to the Priest's prayers (and they serve as a constant recommittment "Again and Again in Peace let us Pray unto the Lord") and also the Abbreviations of the Antiphons rather short change things.

I am wondering if perhaps it would be a good idea for Eastern Latins to form some kind of joint committee to study / implement ideas to the Orthodox services.

It is really short-sighted for the "scholars" to limit themselves to the DIVINE Liturgy; after all, you cannot make changes to it without considering Vespers, Orthos, ect. And when you get right down to it, the Typicon is quite disfunctional on the Gregorian so a complete re-write from the ground up is in order here.

Perhaps when Alex meets Karol W. he could get some suggestions from someone who is more experienced in such matters?

And don't let the "liberals" hear about this, they may want to add a few tricks of there own.

Father Elias,

Perhaps you can comment on how close the text I posted comes to what you were given for review. Perhaps the final version is less extensive than what I posted? In any case, I am starting to regret posting the text. I did not realize that it was so divisive and so many are against it. I just hope that whatever is decided upon the clergy and people obey their bishops and give the reforms a chance. Part of the current problem is too many are doing what they want to do rather than what they are instructed to do.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance;

Any major change is potentially divisive. Every ecumenical council has resulted in division. Every major revision of tradition runs the risk of alienating some group (e.g. the Nikonian reforms).

But I do think this is worthy of discussion. The purpose of the revision is to remove the tarnish from the icon so that it can shine more brilliantly.

It seems to me that the Eastern Catholic churches are now seated in a very unique position. Several components must be taken into consideration.

1. Because of the unifying effect provided by the See of Peter and Paul, they (we) have the opportunity to lead. They (we) can reform our liturgies to rediscover what is truly authentic. We are not incapacitated by the "separate-but-equal" approach to ecclesiology that hampers the Orthodox jurisdictions.

2. As a true Church unto itself, The Byzantine Ruthenian Church must care for its own people. It cannot ignore its own needs so as to avoid offending those outside of its community. In the past, we have attempted to become more like the Western Church, we have attempted to be more like the Eastern Churches. We are only now realizing that we need to be ourselves. We are growing into Ecclesial adulthood.

3. "New" does not of itself mean inauthentic, artificial, heretical, or contrary to Tradition. I would agree that it does not necessarily mean better either.

4. "Old" does not of itself mean perfect, unchangeable, or necessarily Traditional. After all, what is old now, was new at one time.

5. It is better to revise the liturgy to something that will resound in the life of the faithful as opposed to keeping liturgies (including Orthros, Vespers, etc.) that are widely ignored by the majority of Orthodox and Catholic alike. The laity have always spoken most loudly through their silence.

6. It is important to place the context of our traditions into the context of our experience of living in the New World. A Liturgy that reflects the life and practice of the Eastern European cultures of the 15th-19th century will not survive here for more than a few more generations. Our experience of the Divine Reality is as significant and relevant as the Church Fathers. This does not negate the relevance of the Fathers, it simply recognizes the gift that has been given to us through Baptism and through life itself.

7. It seems to me, that the "call for homogeneity" among the Byzantine Churches is of itself non-Traditional. There is a reason why there are 21 Eastern Churches and only one Western Church. Is the call for homogeneity in Tradition really a Pre-Vatican II Latinization?

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if nothing ever needed to change. I would have preferred it if I never grew beyond the age of 7 (now that was living!) However, all of us are called for spiritual maturity. God, in his Providence, placed us within the dimension of time for a reason. We all must, individually and corporately, achieve spiritual maturity. Change is inevitable and must be embraced. We have a choice, we can either simply change, or we can be transformed.

John

Unfortunately, like so many other changes, they will be made without explanation.

Case in point: we cantors received instructions on the new Paschal changes the previous year. These changes were to combat "creeping Paschalism." Yet, no explanation of "creeping Paschalism" was given, why it was needed to be addressed and changed, and what the significance of these changes were to challenge or check any future "creeping Paschal-isms." The instruction list had no date stamp, no names on it, no documentation that it was even an official episcopal mandate. As usual, it was sent out at the end of the Great Fast with hardly any time to discuss and properly study it so it can be implemented. When those cantors who did receive a copy of the mandated changes (thru the grapevine) and did make the changes many people grew angry and frustrated with it. Because cantors had no reason given for the changes (nothing to go on to answer the charges of bastardization of our liturgy) we were left stranded with blank faces. Our only reason was: we were instructed to do them. Blank stares.

Of course, giving the cantors (and others) reasons for the changes is quite challenging. It implies that cantors, catechists, and pastors are actually on a need-to-know basis. Tweak here, tweak there. Abbreviate here, lengthen there. People, especially those who help make liturgy happen in their special ministries and instruction, are not given the proper support or inclusion as to why things happen in their church and to their liturgy. But, then again, if one is on a not-to-know basis ...

Though I agree with taking the anaphora aloud - its about time! - I often wonder how many liturgical texts DOES Fr. Taft approve in one year? Rome did an extensive investigation of our recension OVER 50+ YEARS AGO! I know that the Ordo Celebrationis is used in the deacon program today, but where was it for half a century?

If this new liturgy p*sses off those remnant few who are Eastern in orientation, what will our small (and getting smaller) church have left? How many will continue to fight in the front lines?

Question: in all this talk about getting together with our Sister Orthodox on matters liturgical, what input or comments did we receive from them? When our pastors are given the new liturgy for their comments, will the Orthodox hierarchs be given a copy too? Deacon John Petrus is correct in that we, as a Church, have to grow up, but will that include the mandate to collaborate with the Orthodox? Just wondering.

Joe

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

"I am starting to regret posting the text. I did not realize that it was so divisive..."

Nothing ignites interest, energy and ire among Byzantines as a rousing discussion on Liturgy -- could anyone expect anything different?

During last year's otpust a member of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission speculated that the two Prayers of the Faithful said silently by the priest would be supressed, being that they are scrap remnants of litanies that are no longer there. Sounds reasonable to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this particular subject?

Just an ordinary kind of fool.

Lance,

It seems to me that the text you posted is vastly different from the one sent to Rome for approval. I haven't seen a copy of the musical version recently distributed by the seminary for review by selected priests and cantors but I have been told there are great changes. Since the text has now been publicly distributed for review and comment I am very glad you have posted a text (even if not exact) to spur on this discussion so that the faithful may provide their thoughts.

I strongly disagree with your comment: "I just hope that whatever is decided upon the clergy and people obey their bishops and give the reforms a chance. Part of the current problem is too many are doing what they want to do rather than what they are instructed to do." The people, together with the clergy and bishops are equally responsible to protect the liturgy and our traditions. These revisions are so divisive that they can tear apart our tiny Church. Keep in mind that even the ecumenical councils were not considered to be valid and binding until received by the whole Church.

As Fr. Elias noted above, if Fr. Taft reviewed and approved such major revisions to the liturgy then why is he not celebrating them? Will his comments be made public? It is my understanding that the official response from Rome indicated that they may not publish an abbreviated liturgicon. I really hope the new Council of Hierarchs makes public the response from Rome so that the faithful make know what changes are being contemplated.

--

Father Deacon John,

1. Because of the unifying effect provided by the See of Peter and Paul, they (we) have the opportunity to lead. They (we) can reform our liturgies to rediscover what is truly authentic. We are not incapacitated by the "separate-but-equal" approach to ecclesiology that hampers the Orthodox jurisdictions.

We are not called as Byzantine Catholics to lead any reform of the liturgy that is not in conjunction with the rest of Orthodoxy. If one respects and follows the various directives from Rome (from the Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches to the more recent liturgical directives) we are to look to Orthodoxy to find the proper contemporary usage of the liturgy. We have not always been faithful to our Byzantine heritage. We should look to those who have been faithful all along for indications of the direction we must go. We are not in any way to create a "Third Way" which is exactly what the revisionists are seeking to do. What they are proposing is nothing less than another round of latinizations.

2. As a true Church unto itself, The Byzantine Ruthenian Church must care for its own people. It cannot ignore its own needs so as to avoid offending those outside of its community. In the past, we have attempted to become more like the Western Church, we have attempted to be more like the Eastern Churches. We are only now realizing that we need to be ourselves. We are growing into Ecclesial adulthood.
.
Caring for our own people does not mandate or necessitate a revision of the liturgy. We need to restore and use what we have received, not start anew. You seem to be recommending that we reject our Eastern heritage and "be ourselves". Doing your own thing is not always a sign of adulthood but often times a sign of immaturity. I strongly disagree. Pope John Paul II has loudly called us to witness the light of Orthodoxy within Catholic communion. This means a restoration of the Byzantine patrimony we have lost. It does not mean making arbitrary changes to the liturgy based upon the personal taste of a few.

3. "New" does not of itself mean inauthentic, artificial, heretical, or contrary to Tradition. I would agree that it does not necessarily mean better either.

Agreed. It is my opinion that the new rubrics and translations are less faithful to our tradition and will poorly serve the faithful. Those who seek to revise the liturgy have the burden of concretely demonstrating the need for these revisions which will create a Third Way, one different from the rest of our Byzantine brethren (both Catholic and Orthodox).

4. "Old" does not of itself mean perfect, unchangeable, or necessarily Traditional. After all, what is old now, was new at one time.

Agreed. One need not chuck something merely because it is old.

5. It is better to revise the liturgy to something that will resound in the life of the faithful as opposed to keeping liturgies (including Orthros, Vespers, etc.) that are widely ignored by the majority of Orthodox and Catholic alike. The laity have always spoken most loudly through their silence.

I disagree strongly. One does not revise the liturgy merely on the basis of one's personal opinon of what speaks to the faithful. The current mess in many Roman Catholic parishes is a prime example and I am surprised that we seek to imitate their mistakes rather than learn from them. Using this logic one could argue for the removal of the icon screen, the turning around of the altar and many other changes. One must, with great care and prayer, work together with all of Byzantine Orthodoxy if such changes are to be made. Currently there are very traditional monastic and parochial usages of the Divine Services. They are sufficient and do speak to the people. Vespers and Matins were well attended in our Church in prior generations. It is my opinion that this was because they were sung by the people and not just the priest, deacon and psalti. It is our current generation that has been taught that Divine Services without Eucharist are not important.

6. It is important to place the context of our traditions into the context of our experience of living in the New World. A Liturgy that reflects the life and practice of the Eastern European cultures of the 15th-19th century will not survive here for more than a few more generations. Our experience of the Divine Reality is as significant and relevant as the Church Fathers. This does not negate the relevance of the Fathers, it simply recognizes the gift that has been given to us through Baptism and through life itself.

It is not appropriate for four little dioceses in America to undertake a revision of the entire Byzantine heritage, especially when we are still too young as a Church to understand what we are altering. Using this logic one could argue that we must adopt the Roman Catholic liturgy since it is very Western and well established in the New World. The liturgy received from our fathers does speak to the New World and will convert it to Christ is only we let it. Look at the example of the Evangelical Orthodox. It was primarily the Divine Liturgy and it being celebrated at its best that attracted these folks to the Byzantine Church.

7. It seems to me, that the "call for homogeneity" among the Byzantine Churches is of itself non-Traditional. There is a reason why there are 21 Eastern Churches and only one Western Church. Is the call for homogeneity in Tradition really a Pre-Vatican II Latinization?

There are not substantial differences between the various Byzantine Catholic Churches. The dozen or so Byzantine Catholic Churches all adhere to the Byzantine liturgical, spiritual and theological traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy formed at the Great Church of Constantinople. The official texts at Rome for the originally Slavic Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Serbs, Croats, and the Hungarians) are in the same set of books. The Melkite liturgical books are not greatly different. This reflects the rather homogeneous state of liturgy within Orthodoxy itself. This is rather amazing given the loose structure of the various Orthodox Churches. One would think that the liturgy as celebrated in the Russian Church would be vastly different than that in an Antiochian Church. They are almost identical.

We are a Church of 7-year-olds who are only just beginning to understand and appreciate our Byzantine inheritance. We should look to our Orthodox brothers and sisters who are more mature as Churches. It is pure arrogance to think that we know more them.

--

durak wrote:

During last year's otpust a member of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission speculated that the two Prayers of the Faithful said silently by the priest would be supressed, being that they are scrap remnants of litanies that are no longer there. Sounds reasonable to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this particular subject?

These litanies are alive and well in some of our parishes. Even at the height of latinization our parishes instinctively knew of their importance. Even though the priest may have omitted these litanies the people continue to sing "Lord, have mercy, Lord, have mercy, To You, O Lord, Amen" since they knew in their hearts that these litanies really belonged and that the Office of the Three Antiphons was still important to the liturgy.

It is my opinion that the Office of the Three Antiphons should be restored in full with at least three verses of each psalm taken with the appropriate troparion refrain. To see this celebrated properly with a deacon is to see something wonderful and beautiful.

Admin

CIX!

Dear John,


This is *NOT* a good idea. The current RC 3-year cycle has been highly destructive on bible knowledge, as hearing one reading every 3 years means it never goes in. The old 1-year lectionary with the same readings repeated year after year meant that at least those readings were drummed into the heads of the congregation. There is more read in the 3-year lectionary but far less effect - anyone who's been through the Traditional Latin Mass movement will tell you this.

Just my two kopecks!

in Domino,

Edward