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

Esteemed Administrator,

I agree with nearly all your points, especially about the service of the three antiphons. However I believe Durak was speaking about the prayers of the faithful, the two prayers which follow the insistent litany, and precede the Cherubic hymn.

These had not been taken aloud in most places, but had been prayed silently by the priest. They should not be removed from the Liturgicon.

As proof that they were expected to be taken by the priest in their proper place, I remember Metropolitan Judson's instruction, when he blessed the antimensia, instructing the clergy on their correct place and use, teaching that it should be unfolded during the praying of the 2nd prayer of the faithful. The clear expectation is that the prayer is recited, even if the deacon does not intone the brief litany before it.

Elias

Fr. Elias,

You are quite correct. I read the word "two" and my mind immediately went to the two prayers of the antiphons that are read silently or may be suppressed in the revisionist liturgy. To pray and hear the litanies of the catechumens and the faithful is to pray and hear the beauty of our inheritance. They should not be cast aside so lightly by the revisionists.

Thank you for the correction.

Admin

Dear Father Deacon,

It was wonderful to see you celebrate on Wednesday. It was a great occasion, and you celebrated very well!

However I disagree with your point about the epistle and gospel reading.

The fundamental principle I believe we must follow, is to avoid separating our Church from the rest of the Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). If the Gospel readings are to be changed, no small Church within the Byzantine Tradition can change this.

We haven't the authority, and we mustn't think the tradition is 'ours' to direct. It is rather our task to more fully appreciate the genius of the present system. There is great wisdom in it.

That being said, I do not think we are always obliged to consider ourself chained to the lectionary. If the correct authority grants permission, occasionally I do not think it is completely proclaim another section of the Gospel which may better suit the occasion (beginning of the school year when children and teachers are blessed for example, or a time of national or civil importance). I believe there is some flexibility. But in my opinion, we have not the flexibility to publish a new lectionary.

Elias

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hieromonk Elias:
[QB]Esteemed Administrator,

However I believe Durak was speaking about the prayers of the faithful, the two prayers which follow the insistent litany, and precede the Cherubic hymn.

Yes, those were the two prayers about which I was soliciting comment.
Thank you for the clarification, and for providing the Metropolitan's instruction.

Re: the Lectionary.

Yes, we shouldn't come up with an independent lectionary separate from the Churches of the Byzantine tradition. I know that a few parishes (Brendan's OCA parish comes to mind) have experimented with restoring an Old Testament reading. I think that's an interesting idea and worth pursuing in conjunction with other Byzantine Churches but I'd worry that if we were to add something to the Liturgy someone would want to take something out for time considertions.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I can't believe this. You would think after watching what happened in the RC with these changes that they would be wary of major revisions
in the Liturgy. This Church can't risk the level of lost the RC did after changes in the Liturgy. My first impression was the Byzantine Church wasn't concerned with PC. When the words mankind or brethen are used I know I'm included in there even if I don't have any "man parts". At first I thought wow why so many Litanies? After 9-11 I have a new appreciation of "Lord have mercy". I have been to Liturgies where " through the prayers of the birth giver of God" is used. Yes I know about the translation but it makes her sound like a machine or a cow. It gives it antiseptic, sterile sound.It doesn't evoke the emotions or images Eastern Christians have of the Mother of God. Its nice to know that we have so many intelligent folks in our Church when it comes to knowledge of the Liturgy but I will take common sense which includes what is good for the faithful over intelligence about the Liturgy any day.

Nicky's Baba

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

Some of you are engaged in a "pissing contest" about how much you know about the Liturgy. Stop it.If you can be considered leadership in the Church you know better.Its being driven by pride of what you know- not educating the faithful who read this board.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Baba,

Thanks for your admonition. I know pride is one of my many sins.

It is a terrible temptation to sound "knowledgable" at such moments. But I am torn as to what I should do. Perhaps, humbly, I should remain silent, and not offer any opinions about the revision of the Liturgy?

But, I feel I must speak out if I think errors are going to be made.

You are quite right, education is so important. And I hope I do what I can when I can where I can, to teach about the Liturgy.

However, when I got a letter saying that the new Liturgy, and revised music was about to be promulgated, and comments had to be submitted before August 1st, I am afraid I reacted strongly, and felt a sense of urgency.

What do you think should be done? Should I remain silent? Or should we discuss the merits (or deficiencies) of the proposed new music, and the proposed new translation?

Forgive me,

Elias

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

Baba, please....

We're just having a little fun. Just one more entry please!

We are just partaking in our favorite Eastern tradition, arguing!

Besides, I do think this is actually healthy. It helps us to understand what we hold most dearly. None of us are in a position to actually DO anything (except for maybe Fr. Elias!), but we all feel some level of frustration over the concept of change. This is natural.

In the end, we will all be obedient to the Competent Authority and especially to the Liturgy.

Fr. Elias, thank you for your kind words.

John

Lest I be misunderstood,

I am not recommending change for the sake of change.

I am recommending change only if it results in something more authentic. For myself, I have no idea what this would be.

For the most part,I'm just pitching batting practice. I don't think I hit any out of the park during my turn at bat. (of course any of you are free to disagree with me on this last point. )

John

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Petrus ]

With all due respect to Nicky's Babba, I personally am learning a great deal from this thread. I believe that this is a very necessary discussion, as these changes will have an impact on the future of our Church. Please, let's keep this discussion going.

Although this hasn't been commented on, one change in the new liturgy that I like a great deal is the omission of the filioque. While in other eparchies it has been gone for some time, in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh this divise little thing is still going strong (with a few exceptions, such as Fr. Elias' parish). A great contributor to its proliferation is the fact that the pew books used in 99% of our parishes still include the filioque. If nothing else, it is time to print new pewbooks that don't include it.

Of course, this is just one little (but very important) thing.

Anthony

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Highly esteemed and venerable Deacon John,

Thank you for acknowledging our tradition of arguing. How else would one know if Byzantine Christians were conscience?

Lance,

Why do we refer to the Pope as "holy father, the Pope of Rome" most of the time in the text you provided, but then refer to him later as "holy ecumenical Pontiff N ..." in the commemorations? Wouldn't consistency demand that we refer to the Pope as "holy father" rather than change it with "ecumenical Pontiff?" Is this another case where we are consistently inconsistent? Just wondering.

Joe

Hieromonk Elias,

No you shouldn't remain quiet.You and others who have this deadline should ask for an extention. It is too short of time with all the other duties that you have as a Pastor.If an extention is refused as a group say no extention,no input NO IMPLEMENTATION! I know we are a Hierarchical Church but if it affects you ,you should have somewhat of a say. The further away the "Liturgy Changers" are from everyday Parish life the less I trust them to make good decisions about this.

J Thur & Petrus,

OK have fun and argue but sometimes it looks like "I'm smarter then you are" ,maybe it's guy thing. The women here on the board don't that. It goes against who we are. While arguing is going on nothing gets done.

Anthony,

If you are learning great. But you and I come from a place where even though we grew up with the new Mass we have seen a great loss of the lay faithful from the changes. In the RC no Hierarchy has come foward to take ownership of the failure and loss of lay people. Does it matter if Monk Elias does something a certain way but the Church is empty?

If you argue on this board how will that affect these changes? If you feel as as group they are negative will this prevent the changes from taking place? Are you powerless or can you do something about it?


Nicky's Baba