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

I always love posts that speak of other people's ignorance.

Father Deacon John,

Thanks for your post. I agree that the local bishop has the authority to decide how the Divine Services will be celebrated in his eparchy (but even here there are limits). But that is not the question about ecclesiology at hand. The question is that what one local Church does affects the entire Church. In this case the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolitan of Pittsburgh is not merely stating: �Yes the liturgicon states that you must so X, Y and Z but here we will not permit that� but instead he is promulgating an entirely new recension of the Divine Liturgy. He is changing the official standard. Byzantine Catholic bishops do have the right to know how the change in the liturgical standard by the Ruthenians in the United States will affect them.

In the Liturgical Instruction we see in section 21 (which I have also posted elsewhere):

�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.[26]

[26] = Cf. John Paul II, Discourse to participants of the meeting about the pastoral problems of the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite in Romania (22 January 1994): <L'Osservatore Romano>, 22 January 1994, p. 5; see also in <Servizio Informazioni per le Chiese Orientali> 49 (1994) 2.

The multiplication of eparchies or churches <sui iuris> of the same liturgical families that use the same language, sometimes within the same territory, normally requires that standard translations be used. The competent authorities should agree among themselves to obtain this uniformity.�

The obvious questions for our bishops here (which is where I have advised Kapusta and other letter-writers to start if they are really going to start writing letters) are:

1) Since the Liturgical Instruction clearly states that we are to distance ourselves as little as possible from Orthodoxy what is the purpose of issuing a liturgicon that distances us from them? [One could argue that the changes are minor � something I disagree with � but one cannot argue that a change is not being made.] On the Anaphora quietly or out loud issue, how does promulgating a practice contrary to what the Patriarch of Constantinople has directed to the Churches under his care aid the cause of Christian unity?

2) Even if it is not currently possible to prepare a common edition of the Divine Services with the Orthodox it should be very possible to prepare a common edition of the Divine Services with other Byzantine Catholics. There is no reason for there not to be a single edition of the Liturgicon for all English-speaking Byzantine Catholics. Such a book can easily include the rather small differences between the Ruthenian recension (used by us Ruthenians, the Ukrainians, the Romanians, the Hungarians and etc.), the Greek recension (used by Greeks and Melkites) and the Russian recension.

The questions for our bishops here are:

What serious effort has there been to prepare a common translation with the Orthodox? With our fellow Byzantine Catholics?

Why is a major change in rubrics required at this time?

Why are not the other Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox not also making such mandated changes to the Liturgy, which is the common property of all?

Why are these major changes not so paramount for them that they not also mandating them and publishing a new Liturgicion?

Why would it not be better to simply reprint the current Liturgicon with corrections and encourage our priests to celebrate according the 1941 standard? Wouldn�t this be more pastorally advisable until common texts can be prepared?

What is the pressing need for this liturgical revision that it is necessary to reject the Liturgical Instruction instructing us to prepare common texts with other Byzantines?

Now, look at all these questions in light of Canon 657-1 which you quoted from together with Canon 903 (which is identical to �Light from the East� section 24):

�Can. 902 The Eastern Catholic Churches have a special duty of fostering unity among all Eastern Churches, first of all through prayers, by the example of life, by the religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, by mutual and better knowledge of each other, and by collaborating and brotherly respect in practice and spirit.�

How exactly does this general revision to the Divine Liturgy foster unity among the Byzantine Churches?

How does it example religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches as those same Eastern Churches witness it today?

How does it assist our Church in witnessing the fullness of Orthodoxy within Roman Communion?

Does it not show that we have no desire to witness Orthodoxy in its fullness and wish to adjust our liturgical inheritance into something else, a true Third Way?

Now, read this again with Pope John Paul the Great�s teaching in Light from the East:

[i]�These [Eastern Catholic] Churches carry a tragic wound, for they are still kept from full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches despite sharing in the heritage of their fathers. A constant shared conversion is indispensable for them to advance resolutely and energetically towards mutual understanding.�

Exactly how to the proposed liturgical revisions part of a shared conversion with the Orthodox?

Now, go back and place yourself in the position of a Melkite or Ukrainian bishop wondering how what those Ruthenians are doing to the Liturgy, which is the shared property of all Byzantines? Yes, he does not have a say in what a local Metropolitan promulgates for his Church. But he does have a just concern on how that promulgation will affect his own Church. This is especially true here in the United States where we have parishes from four Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions geographically close to one another.

Now Kapusta might not have a crumb of knowledge about canon law or the inner workings and politics of the Church. But she has hit upon something important. Other Byzantine Catholic Churches and even the Orthodox Churches have a right to expect to be consulted on liturgical changes of this type.

If other Byzantine Catholic (and even Orthodox) bishops know about this revision and have questions about it they do have a right according to the Church instructions to be consulted about these changes? And to ask some pointed questions if they are not?

We can also look at this from a very practical approach. In Pennsylvania, Ohio and other places we are not at the point where one pastor shepherds two and three parishes. Very often these parishes are in towns 30 and 40 miles away from one another. It is perfectly logical to think that it would a better use of human resources for a single priest to serve both a Ruthenian parish and a Ukrainian parish located in the same town (often blocks away) then to have him travel 30 or 40 miles to serve another parish. As our clergy ages, arrangements like this might must become the norm. [I know of at least one priest who temporarily serves a Ukrainian parish that is about 40 miles away from his two Ruthenian parishes.] Would it not make sense for this priest to have one set of liturgical books to celebrate from? Is it fair to the people (who undoubtedly will eventually merge into a single parish if they wish to survive in economically troubled areas where people are leaving in droves) to change the liturgical standard (even if not always met) to have different standards for both Churches? It seems to me that other bishops have a right to ask our bishops all of the above questions about this Revised Liturgy. And to expect real answers.

Since I have not specifically stated it in this thread I will state again that I have the utmost respect for our bishops and know that they are doing what they think is right. But my respect is tempered with the knowledge that the last time the bishops told our priests not to follow the 1941 Liturgicon it led to great harm in our parishes (something we are still recovering from).

As our bishops ask us for our obedience in this matter they, in turn, have an obligation to be obedient to the larger Church. I hope that there would be a lengthy pastoral letter by our bishops that addresses all these questions above, a letter that includes what other Byzantine catholic Churches thing about this revision. The faithful � people like Kapusta, you and me � deserve nothing less.

This post covers more than you asked, Father Deacon, but I hope I have been clear in showing that the Liturgy is not just the property of the Ruthenian bishops in America to do as they please with, but the property of the whole Church. What one does affects all. When one brother is unilaterally making changes on the family farm that feeds all his brothers, those brothers have a right to speak to him about this. This is the nature of the Church.

Admin

Doctrinally, the notion that a diocesan bishop's responsibility stops at the borders of his diocese is not accurate. All the bishops have ex officio a responsiblity of episcopal solicitude for the whole Church - this, by the way, is an important basis for the Vatican I teaching on the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

On a practical level, it is quite true that some 20 years ago, when Msgr Jan Hirka brought in that horrible "renovated Liturgy" in Slovak, other Byzantine bishops from many places protested, emphatically - and the result is that the Eparchy of Preshov now has a Slovak translation of the 1941 Liturgicon.

It is not safe to be entirely sure that the Bishops will take no interest and will not allow themselves to be heard.

Other examples could be cited.

Incognitus

Administrator,

I must ask again: "Why should our liturgical life be dictated by either the disobedience of the Orthodox or the disobedience of the Roman Catholics?" I don't understand why our identity should be determined by either. Both are in disobedience to Christ's call for unity. I'm only interested in following the light God has given us because we are the only ones following His call for unity.

Whenever I hear about another critical Orthodox Patriarch who snidely remarks that our bishops had no right to be part of the funeral ceremonies for Pope John Paul or I remember how the RC went back on their promise to allow married priests I realize that neither group is worthy of our devotion. Neither group is worthy of our "slavishness".

I repeat again it is they who should be following our example not we who follow their example. I'd much rather be a living example of unity than examples of stubborn resistance to unity. It is they who don't deserve us not we who should be intimidated by them.

Why is this so hard to recognize?

Dan L

I�m not sure I understand your question. The Orthodox are not disobedient in Liturgy. Rome has rightly told us to follow their example and to distance ourselves from them as little as possible because it is the correct thing to do. Why do so many resist this? Our calling is to witness the fullness of Orthodoxy in all things within Roman communion. This is very important endeavor and changing our Liturgy in ways that separate us further from our mother Churches does not in any way serve the cause of unity. In Orientale Lumen Pope John Paul the Great directs the Eastern Catholic Churches to �rediscover their full identity� as Byzantine Christians and as witnessed by our mother Orthodox Churches. This is why in the Liturgical Instruction we are directed: �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.�

The fact that someone is critical of us is not a reason for not doing what is right.

You say that we need to be an example of unity. I agree. How exactly does promulgating the liturgical preferences of a few individuals in the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America aid the cause of unity?

No, the example of unity that we must live is one of the fullness of Byzantine Orthodoxy within Roman communion.

Anything the Orthodox have done since 1054 is colored by that disobedience. The same is true about the RCs. Why should any group that seeks to live by the standards of the Church prior to that date be intimidated by any Church that does not seek to be faithful?

I know I'm idealistic. So what? All I'm suggesting is that standards set by churches that are disobedient ought not dominate our decision making.

"No, the example of unity that we must live is one of the fullness of Byzantine Orthodoxy within Roman communion."

Unity is exemplified by honoring "disunity"? This I do not understand!

Dan L

I have to agree. This does seem a bit leaden. It's the poetry that missing.

Dan Lauffer asserts that since both the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are "disobedient" we, the Greek Catholics, having a purer form of Christianity, should pay little or no attention to either one of them and concentrate on making ourselves into what the philosophers would call a "tertium quid".

Like all of us, Dan has a right to hold whatever opinion he likes. But he then calls this opinion "idealistic". This seems a bit much - idealism should be based both on realism and on high aspirations; I find neither in Dan's assertion.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

I suppose you too are free to hold to whatever opinion you wish even though it's incorrect. Ah, what a country. I am gratified however that at least one person has recognized that I believe we ought to be about the Father's business and not simply be about continuing a schism that should have never happened in the first place.

Dan L

We must certainly be about our Father's business. That business has nothing whatever to do with continuing a schism, and everything to do with healing one.

Incognitus

The Administrator wrote:
<<Why would it not be better to simply reprint the current Liturgicon with corrections and encourage our priests to celebrate according the 1941 standard? Wouldn't this be more pastorally advisable until common texts can be prepared?>>

Father David Petras in the June 5, 2005, HORIZONS, wrote: "To do this, and to provide a Liturgy that would be the standard for all our churches, it was necessary to make corrections to the 1964 translation. It was then felt that we should do the project right, not just cobble in a few corrections, but to do a translation that was clear and accurate and would serve the needs of our parishes."

Does the new translation/revision actually make things more CLEAR? Is it more ACCURATE? And in the end, will it truly SERVE THE NEEDS OF OUR PARISHES?

Dan,

While it is certianly true that the schism should never have happened it is equally true that it did happen. So, we have the Latin Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, and we stand in between.

I will preface my remarks by saying that, in keeping with the Melkite tradition, we are the voice of Orthodoxy in the Latin Church, and we are the witness to Orthodoxy of how a reunion might work. If we are to be faithful to both aspects of our role, we must also recognize that we are, first and foremost, Orthodox in tradition, especially in areas of liturgy.

It is for that reason that the Second Vatican Council ordered us to return to our "authentic roots" and to eliminate those Latinisms that had become so endemic in our parishes. We had taken on the "when in Rome" thinking with a vengance.

When we change our Liturgy so that it no longer represents Orthodoxy we move away from our role as the go-between. Now, perhaps that's what you think we should do. But as one who believes that reunion will only come about when we can show that we have a right to exist and that we are treated with equality by the Latin Church will the Orthodox believe that reunion is possible. If, however, we move away from Orthodoxy then that voice is stilled and no longer speaks to them.

At least, that's my 2 rubles worth.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Father Deacon,
Thanks for an excellent posting. But I do hope those are gold rubles.

Incognitus

I didn�t want to start an argument. All I wanted to do was to tell people to write to Rome and the the other Byzantine Catholic bishops to get them to talk sense into our bishops. Writing letters is a lot of work. So far I have only sent 4 letters and one of my friends at church has sent 2 so we have a lot of work to do yet. We have to save our liturgy. The bishops are wrong. If we can get at least 20 people to commit to go up to West Paterson we may picket at Bishop Pataki�s offices. If we can get some TV news coverage it would be great.

Fr. Deacon Ed,

When you say "represents Orthodoxy" do you mean serving exactly like the Orthodox counterpart (in the Melkite case, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)?

I ask because the way the Melkites serve (at least as far as I can tell) is not identical to the way the Antiochians serve. For example, the Melkites seem to only take one antiphon, make the Little Entrance duing "Only-Begotten Son," and omit the little litanies; the Antiochian Orthodox in America definately do not serve this way, and I doubt that those in the "old country" serve this way. Also, the Melkite method for the distribution of Holy Communion by hand without a spoon is another difference.

Even with these differences, the Melkites have long been praised for their fidelity to Eastern traditions, and relations between the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Antioch are positive.

Dave