www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Addressess to write to to complain about the new liturgy

Dan,
We haven't seen the new Liturgy but we have heard and seen the new and "improved" Matins and Vespers. We can base some of our speculation on how we feel about these new versions. I ma bracing myself for fall when the new translations come out and enjoying my summer with my beloved old versions. T

-Katie G

Dear Kapusta,
In the former thread I remember asking specifically WHAT you were going to write to complain about. I also wondered whether your priest was writing letters. Is he? What kind of catachesis is going on in your church to educate the laity about the changes? Or is it just too early. Is there a deadline looming for these changes to be made?

By your postings I gather your pastor is encouraging you and others from the congregation to complain via letter writing. This may or may not be true, but it sounds as if you perceive it to be true. Will his signed letter accompany yours in the envelope? In other words- is he sticking his neck out with yours?

My words of wisdom- don't make fools of yourselves by writing letters based on something that you haven't seen/heard or been educated about yet. IMHO writing letters to Bishops of other churches will get you nowhere. They aren't going to 'gang up' on Bp Pataki. For one thing I am sure they don't care to get into our internal business. They have their own churches to worry about.

A letter writng campaign to Bp Pataki will get as far as your request to speak to them.

This post may sound harsh, and I know your heart is in this, but maybe you should just wait it out. The changes may never happen, or the changes may be reversed/dropped by the next bishop. There is so much that needs our energy and focus in our churches. Using the same worn out analogy again- don't let another rearranging of the deck chairs divert your attention away from the iceberg up ahead.

Pray for guidance and be at peace.

Sam

Katie,

What specifically is wrong with the Matins and Vespers we are using? Have you seen the new version of the DL to be introduced this fall? If so, what specifically is wrong with it? If you haven't upon what do you base your fear?

Dan L

Amado,

My brother, your Latinism is showing .

I assure you that Charles is more than competent in his knowledge and understanding of the functions, competencies, jurisdiction, and domains of the Curial dicastries, likely more so than almost any of us here.

As to the CDF, there is no doctrinal matter at issue, even if it had jurisdiction.

As to the CDWDS, authority as to matters liturgical in the Churches of the East and the Orient, other than those of eparchial rank (which is not the case here) is vested in the presiding hierarch of the sui iuris Church and his Holy Synod, with approval of the Apostolic See - being the relevant Curial body (in this instance the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the sole body with a mandate for matters Eastern).

Many years,

Neil

Kapusta,

I have to agree strongly with Sam. This letter-writing campaign is doomed to failure given that it is based on rumor and innuendo, versus any factual evidence on the part of the writers as to the problem they allege to exist.

Added to that is the fact that no patriarch, major-archbishop, metropolitan, archeparch, or eparch of any sui iuris Church, Byzantine or otherwise, is about to take seriously or act on a complaint to him about a liturgical decision made by the presiding hierarch and holy synod or council of hierarchs of another sui iuris Church.

Writing to my eparch on this matter is akin to a resident of Connecticut writing the governor of Ohio to complain about a gubernatorial decision made in Connecticut. It doesn't concern him, will not affect the conduct of affairs in his bailiwick, and the consequences of it for those of his constituents who pass through Connecticut while traveling are so remote as to be of no consequence to him.

You can argue that there's a difference - a common interest in maintaining the integrity of a commonly used liturgical praxis, but it's not his business and he will not act on it - he hasn't the authority or the right to interfere with the decision of a presiding ecclesial hierarch. Heck, he can't even serve the Liturgy in the other hierarch's churches without asking permission to do so.

Save your energy, your stamps, and your dignity. Wait until you see that about which you are complaining.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

You have written much wisdom in these last two posts. I'd like to pursue a couple of things with you that you've brought up but since they have little or nothing to do with this thread I'll start another.

Dan L

Might I offer some comments here?

I have no problem with participants posting on the forum to encourage others to voice their opinions to those in authority. This includes those suggesting we write to complain about the Revised Liturgy (as Kapusta done) and those suggesting we write in support of the Revised Liturgy (as Dan Lauffer had done). Such posts must always comply with the simple rule of charity. There is a line, however, between encouraging others and using the Forum as a place of activist organization. I hope no one crosses this line. One wise person I consulted about this thread suggested that a better way would have been for a poster to speak about their idea to write letters for or against (whatever) and then offer to share addresses privately. It would also be useful for the poster to be specific as to the nature of the complaints. (I can only guess that since it is likely that Kapusta has not seen the new texts, she is responding to the new rubrics, which are already in effect in her eparchy.)

Father Deacon John rightly notes that Kapusta�s hope that other bishops �gang up on our bishops� is not appropriate. But it is not really poor ecclesiology. Since our bishops are modifying the property of the whole Byzantine Church it is logical that they seek the opinions of others outside the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh since there is nothing we do that does not affect them. But even here, our bishops deserve the benefit of doubt (that they have sought such input) and one should start by contacting them and asking the question. At best, bishops outside the Ruthenian Church would only have the tool of persuasion at their disposal (either to persuade our bishops in a particular direction or to ask Rome to persuade our bishops in a particular direction).

Admin

John,

One clarification. I did not suggest that people write in support of the new translations. That would be impossible for me to do since I have not seen them. Rather I wrote in support of encouraging the bishops to send study copies of the new translation for the people to comment on before promulgation is even considered. I believe that secrecy in most matters is a bad thing unless the secrecy is done to protect the innocent. In this case I don't assume that there is any guilt or innocence. It is just best to make mutual decisions when something this important is at stake and positive action in one area can inspire positive action in all areas.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

I agree. In something that effects everyone, everyone needs to be heard. Especially if it concerns the way we pray. Especially if it is something as important as the prayers and rubrics of the Divine Liturgy. Especially if we want as many people as possible to accept the changes.... much work has yet to be done.

What 'model' of Church are we working with here? (....with apologies to Cardinal Dulles.) Clearly when this work is done in secret, and with work circulating only from xerox copies given to select clergy, one has to wonder. It is certainly a very 'hierarchical' model.

The theology of the liturgy, and the 'model of Church' seen in the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, is very different. It is a co-operation, where everyone, the bishop, clergy, and people accept responsibility and have a role to play.

The way this revision is being carried out (trust the bishops, the place of the lay people is simply be silent, listen and obey, because the the liturgy is the responsibility of ordained professionals, and they know best), is a real step backward.

Mutual decision, wider consultation, more communication, everyone listening and having a chance to be heard, more lay involvement....

...is it a dream? ...why can't it work?

I don't want weak or spineless bishops, who turn on a dime every time a letter of complaint is sent in to their office.

But I think when lay people have been deliberately excluded from a process this important to their spiritual lives and prayer, something is not in good order. The model of Church at work here, is not a good one.

Nick

Katie,

Like Dan, I'm also curious as to what concerns you about our current versions of vespers and matins.

I was under the impression these "improved" versions were more complete and faithful to our Carpatho-Rusyn spiritual heritage that what we had previously. They seem to be a real improvement. The spiral bound books are long and beautiful and I appreciate Prof. Thompson's efforts.

In Christ,

John

Dear Dan and John,
I never said that you had to think there was something wrong I just don't like them. I'm not trying to impose my views on you. I think that becuase I have heard the old way my entire life and no offense Dan and JOhn are newer to our church you are more open to changing things. I'm just used to the way things are. I'm sorry if you think that i want you to be like i am or think the way i think that was not my intention. Think whatever you want becuase its your right i was just stating my opinion.

-Katie g

Katie,

I confess that I like the stanza from the old version of vespers (Psalm 103) that read:

"Even the wide and open sea itself:
within it there are countless creeping things,
living beings small and large.
Upon it there are ships a-sailing
and that great beast You made to have fun"

The new translation reads:

"There is the sea, vast and wide,
with its moving swarms past counting,
living things great and small.
The ships are moving there,
and the monsters you made to play with."

There is such poetic power in the line reading:
"that great beast You made to have fun."

In Christ,

John

Katie,

I wonder what the real "old way" is for our Church? Is it how we've lived our particular identity as Latinized Greek Catholics for the past 125 years in the US, or is the "old way" to be found elsewhere conforming ourselves to Christ as the Orthodox in communion with Rome that we are called to be.

We need to ask ourselves what is the best way we can embrace and draw living water from our rich traditions to evangelize the world.

In Christ,

John

I have to agree with you here, John!

Admin:

You write that our bishops are modifying the property of the whole Byzantine Church. In the presentation given during our clergy conference I did not hear Fr David mention that the Metropolitan is going to promulgate Divine Liturgy for all Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions, since the CCEO only permits the Metropolitan with the consent of the Council of Hierarchs to approve liturgical texts for the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Other than the Apostolic See, no one else is required to review the text. Other than the Council of Hierarchs no one else is required to give their consent. Thinking that any hierarch from another Church sui juris could or would involve himself in what is clearly the responsibility of the hierarchs of our Church alone may not be "poor ecclesiolgy" (which term I did not use), but it is a misunderstanding of the Eastern Catholic Churches' ecclesiology as provided in canon 657 of the CCEO, which Neil listed above.

What you posted (consultation with other Bishops) is completely different than what Kapusta is trying to accomplish (other Bishops' forcing the legitimate authority of another Church sui juris not to exercise that authority in liturgical matters). The latter certainly reflects ignorance of ecclesiology.