www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Liturgical changes in the Paschal season

Incognitus,

"I have most assuredly read both the CCEO and the Instruction. Face it, the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate is neither a Patriarchate nor a Major Archepiscopal Church, and does not have the rights which such Churches have."

Well if you had then you should remember:

Canon 657-�1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within limits set by it to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.

�2. The same authorities are also competent to approve translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

Face it, Pittsburgh is a metropolitan Church sui iuris and, in this case, has exactly the same rights which a patriarchal/major archepiscopal Church has.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Canon 657-�4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, �1.

Canon 40-�1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic process, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.

How do these proposed revisions of the Liturgy accomplish the �faithful protection and accurate observance� of the Byzantine-Ruthenian liturgical rite?

Even if one can pretend that all these proposed revisions are organic, how does modifying the Liturgy away from the official texts and rubrics that the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (both Catholic and Orthodox) are restoring it to promote the �mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians�?

Again, Paragraph 21 of the Liturgical Instruction: �In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage� [Bold emphasis added]

Exactly how do these proposed revisions to the Liturgy decrease the distance between us and the Orthodox (not in communion with Rome)? No Orthodox Church has implemented these revisions.

Paragraph 29: Nonetheless, any unnecessary differentiation between the liturgical books of the Eastern Catholic Churches and those of the Orthodox should be avoided. Rather, common editions, in the measure in which it is possible, are encouraged. Pope John Paul II affirms, in the occasion of his address to the Catholics of the Armenian Church, "It is particularly dear to me to wish that the common study of the liturgy and its necessary adaptations be a privileged field of collaboration between Armenian Catholics and Orthodox." [Bold emphasis added]

Where are the common editions? Other Churches of the Ruthenian recension are using our books as their standard. We, on the other hand, are rejecting them.

Christ is risen!

The Administrator is correct. In addition, anyone who would like to see clear evidence might well notice *Byzantine Daily Worship*, which carries the approval of the Patriarch, but has never sought for any approval from Rome. But in the roughly four decades since it first appeared, Rome has never indicated any displeasure with the book, or with its status. Likewise the Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East has approved liturgical books in German, French, Spanish, Italian and so on.
Not only is a Metropolitan Church sui iuris NOT in the same position as a Patriarchate; Pittsburgh in particular is in a different position because of the nature of the Ruthenian Recensions books.
Oddly enough, it occurs to me that Father Deacon Lance is articulating substantially the same position as Bishop Nicholas Elko and the clergy of the Pittsburgh Exarchate who opposed the Ruthenian Recension books all those years ago - though at least they could argue that they were only seeking to retain what was already in use at the time. I very much doubt that Bishop Nicholas Elko and his clergy were seeking to create an entirely new ritual.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Including, as recollection serves me, the Gaelic translation prepared by Father Serge Kelleher for use in Dublin by the UGC parish. That it was a text for use by a parish of a Church sui iuris other than his own, gives particular acknowledgement to the scope of patriarchal authority (unless his grant of approbation was justified on the basis of it being suitable for use by the Melkites, should we need a Gaelic translation in future? Although Slav-Ruthenian-Ukrainian to Antiochean-Greek-Melkite rescension seems to me to be a bit of a stretch for that argument?).

Many years,

Neil

Incognitus,

"Not only is a Metropolitan Church sui iuris NOT in the same position as a Patriarchate; Pittsburgh in particular is in a different position because of the nature of the Ruthenian Recensions books.
Oddly enough, it occurs to me that Father Deacon Lance is articulating substantially the same position as Bishop Nicholas Elko and the clergy of the Pittsburgh Exarchate who opposed the Ruthenian Recension books all those years ago"

Well in this particular case it is in the same position according to CCEO, you were incorrect in your previous statements. That the Melkites don't seek papal approval has no bearing, they are supposed to.

Please allow me to articulate my position. If I had my druthers we would use the 1941 Ordo as is. However, since I have no say in the matter I try to be supportive of the revisions the hierarchs have decided on and Rome has approved. Some I am in favor of, some I am not, but overall I don't think the changes are that drastic. Complaining about a done deal is pointless in my opinion and our energies could be better spent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance appears to be growing impatient with me (in which case, I hope he likes standing in long lines). He writes:

"Well in this particular case it is in the same position according to CCEO, you were incorrect in your previous statements."
No, I was not and am not incorrect in my previous statements. Again, the good Father Deacon needs to learn how to read canonical documents in context. Until he does that, he will only spread confusion.

"That the Melkites don't seek papal approval has no bearing, they are supposed to."
Forgive me, but I somehow doubt that Patriarch Gregory III is waiting for Father Deacon to tell His Holiness how a Patriarch is supposed to act. The Patriarchate has good canonists.

"Please allow me to articulate my position." By all means do so; a serious articulation might reduce the confusion.

" If I had my druthers we would use the 1941 Ordo as is."
So what is preventing Father Deacon from doing precisely that? Is there a document approved by Rome FORBIDDING the use of the books from the early forties?
"However, since I have no say in the matter" For a man with no say in the matter, Father Deacon is not exactly reticient.

"I try to be supportive of the revisions the hierarchs have decided on and Rome has approved." What, precisely, does this mean? There does not seem to be a general uniformity of practice at all - which argues in favor of the use of the official books as a standard which can at least be established, if not enforced.

"Some I am in favor of, some I am not, but overall I don't think the changes are that drastic." Father Deacon is entitled to his opinion - and so am I, and so is everyone else. But Liturgy is not a matter of sheer opinion.

"Complaining about a done deal is pointless in my opinion" those of us with a greater historical consciousness could easily provide a list of any number of done deals which were scuppered because enough people complained about them. The Slovak Liturgicon which our Administrator has mentioned is a case in point.

"and our energies could be better spent." Agreed. Will Father Deacon please spend his energies learning how to read the relevant documents accurately, and how to pursue serious research in liturgical studies? He might then be able to offer something more than his own opinions.

Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Incognitus,

"No, I was not and am not incorrect in my previous statements. Again, the good Father Deacon needs to learn how to read canonical documents in context. Until he does that, he will only spread confusion."

The text is crystal clear, I will leave it to others to judge who is being honest about what the text says.

"Will Father Deacon please spend his energies learning how to read the relevant documents accurately, and how to pursue serious research in liturgical studies? He might then be able to offer something more than his own opinions."

It is very easy to hide "incognito" and pontificate and ridicule. When you have the character to post a real name, identity and credentials I'll think about giving weight to your opinions and statements.

Fr. Deacon Lance

As I said, Father Deacon is growing impatient with me.
He writes that:

"The text [of the canons] is crystal clear" - ANY canonist will confirm that assuming that about the canons is imprudent. Please don't blame me; I've never written even one canon law in my whole life.

"I will leave it to others to judge who is being honest about what the text says." Didn't realize anyone's honesty was at issue. I have certainly not called Father Deacon a liar; I merely hold that his understanding of the canons is incorrect.


"It is very easy to hide "incognito" and pontificate and ridicule. When you have the character to post a real name, identity and credentials . . . "
My slender apologies for not rising to the bait. There is some reason to believe that the number of clergy of the Ruthenian Metropolia who are opposed to the planned wave of liturgical innovation is much larger than one might gather from the Forum, but that there is apprehension concerning the possible response of the thought police to any criticism. Meanwhile, the content of what I am saying is, I hope, more important than the identity of the speaker. An incognito does not prevent me or anyone else from offering evidence, the fruits of research and so forth.

Christ is Risen!
Incognitus