www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Just My Thoughts

If I understand Archibishop Dimitri's defense of Elizabethan or King James English in the Liturgy, should not our preaching be carried out in the same language? One could ask, "Is it not strange and inconsistent to insist upon a "timeless" artistic form of language in our liturgy but not in the language of our preaching?"

If the langauge of the liturgy can only be understood by clergy who have received formal training I'm not sure it can still be leitourgia in the sense of "the work of the people." ISTM that this would clericalism at its worst. [/QUOTE]

Curious on your thoughts Deacon John:

Do you think that our church was inconsistent and strange for the period of time when it had Old Church Slavonic for the Liturgy and native slavic tounges for preaching(i.e. Ukrainian, Slovakian, etc. which some parts of Eastern Europe still do now) back in Eastern Europe prior to immigrating to the US; and when it had Old Church Slavonic for Liturgy and Rusyn and/or English for preaching in the USA during the first 75 years or so (depending on your location and parish in the US) of its existence in this country?

How did Bishop Romzha preach and say liturgy for example?

I would guess (and it really would be a guess) that he preached in Rusyn and said the liturgy in Old Church Slavonic.

The topic of the thread introduced by leoxpiusx was the liturgy, as was nec's response. My response to Nec was about the liturgy not about the other topics that you introduced.

I don't think the Administrator was off topic and I don't feel the need to add much more to what he has written. All these things go together.

So what is the proposal. Find some "average" homogenized practice not actually done by anybody? And assume this as ours. That is as far as one could get from an organic development or an authentic tradition. We are a church, not a theme-park, dressing up and imitating some fictitious average EO praxis!

Why the need for sarcasm here? Have I suggested that was my view? It is not.

The Administrator asked pointed questions which you said were off topic. For example, you mention the audible anaphora. The OCA parish I visit does not have it. There is no mandate to require it at every Liturgy. Is there any Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction that does? I'm not against an audible Anaphora. I'm not sure it should be done at EVERY liturgy. Perhaps at Pascha and at other special feast days.

I primarily had other issues when asking the question about Orthodox practice in the poll. One glaring example is our abandoing the use of prosphora for precut pieces at the proskomide. I've looked and looked and can find no reference to precut particles in the 1944 Ordo. The Ordo also assumes the distribution of antidoron at the end of Liturgy. But, when you use precut pieces you don't have any bread left over so unless you use more precut pieces. The use of precut pieces instead of prosphora is the prevailing method used in the Ruthenian Church and according to Fr Petras is one of those latinizations we picked up after union with Rome. Here we want to be in the forefront of liturgical renewal in the Byzantine Church and there's no move to follow the Ordo in restoring the cutting of bread to the proskomide service? Why not?

Nec

CHRIST IS RISEN!

djs writes: "Fr. Petras who patiently endure such gross assaults on his scholarship and character".

Excuse me? Who has assaulted Father David Petras's character, or denied his scholarship? A peaceable expression of disagreement with a scholar (especially if the disagreement is itself based on scholarship) is not the same thing as calling the scholar a fake, and still less is it the same thing as assaulting the scholar's character. Scholarship makes progress by, among other things, the process of scholarly disagreements - which help to motivate the scholars to engage in further research. Father David is neither a poltroon nor an ignoramus - and I haven't noticed anyone calling him anything of the sort.

To leoxpiusx: Try single-malt Irish; nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter!

Incognitus

Good point!

Blessed Theodore Romzha, Pavel Gojdych and Aleksander Chira, interceed to Our Lord on our behalf, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church in America that we survive this crisis!

Ungcsertezs

... and Blessed Vasyl Hopko too!

Ungcsertezs

If you mean they are all things we want to kvetch about, then yes. But if you mean they are pertinent to the connection to Novo-Ordinization, in the revision of the text of the liturgy, then no. It's just groundwork for shifting sands arguments.

So I repeat the issue raised by lxpx on our liturgical revisions that I was responding to:

"I think that what is on topic and fairly clear from these article and others from Orthodox sources is English countries is this: The shibboleth of Novo-Ordinization, Latinization, and departures from Orthodoxy have been way overblown in the discussions here."

I think that it would be nice, given the inflammatory nature of the type of charge, if there was some agreement that this idea is rooted in discussions of Orthodox liturgical reform, and has even been evidenced within Orthodoxy. I am sad to see that that opportunity was missed and the defamatory idea allowed to fester. Perhaps that is a deliberate tactic in the hope of rallying support against the thus-tainted practice.

Shifting from the practice to the regulation of the practice: I have not seen a statement about the manner of regulation. It is correct that there exist manners of regulation that if applied would represent a depature from Orthodox regulation of this practice.

I will also agree, in general, that there a great deal of restoration to be done. But that what you went on to discuss - such as it was - is not, IMO, connected to the issue of seeing Novo-Ordinization in the revision of the text of the liturgy.

Sorry incognitus. The Latinization card has been played frequently throughout the whole discussion. It is a slur against those who have worked on the liturgical revisions. I am sure that lxpx's remarks were given innocently, but are symptomatic of the just how well this card has been played.

djs proposes "some agreement that this idea is rooted in discussions of Orthodox liturgical reform".

I regret to disagree. It seems to me that much of what is proposed does indeed reflect what has been happening in Roman Catholic circles over the past four or five decades. Attempts to demonstrate that these proposals are rooted in discussions of Orthodox liturgical reform have so far not succeeded in convincing me.

Actually, one might with profit consider the need to "renew" the Christian faithful (and all mankind) in the light of Scripture, tradition and divine worship.

Incognitus

Again, I ask you which of these rubrical and textual changes have been MANDATED by another Byzantine Church, Catholic or Orthodox?

The idea that Orthodoxy whole heartily approves of these revisions and that suggestion that we are only slightly ahead of them by mandating them is one tactic being used by the Revisionists. The problem with it is that it simply isn�t true. Orthodoxy is just beginning the discussion on liturgical reform. There is no consensus with the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic or Orthodox) that the Liturgy needs revision. There are certainly no directives in any other Byzantine Church mandating the revisions (rubrical and textual) that our Church is proposing. No one has published a formal liturgicon that alters the Liturgy. No one has officially changed the standard.

Is this proposed revision of the Liturgy a latinization? Yes, I believe it is. Someone mentioned that that these revisions bring the Byzantine Divine Liturgy into the Roman Catholic 1970s. That seems pretty accurate.

Is this conclusion (or, more specifically, stating it in public) a slur against those who have worked on the liturgical revisions? No. Although the �because you don�t like these revisions you hate the liturgical commission and are being disobedient to the bishops� is a tactic that some are playing. I have repeatedly stated that I admire and respect each of the members of the liturgical commission. I admire and respect their scholarship. I just disagree with their conclusions and recommendations.

Admin

Administrator,

What exactly are the rubrical revisions that are being proposed?

Thanks.

Tony

What criteria woudl be involved in convincing you? Apparently not the discussion of, and even some implmentation of, the very same aspects of liturgical reform by Orthodox clergy and scholars. What would?

Have there been scholarly disagreements here?
Joe pointed out that in most serious work, by Dr. Tkacz, the criticisms are not grounded in Scripture or authentic tradition - a deficiency that also characterizes of much of the discussion here. The gender-neutral language question has scarcely progressed beyond automatic LOUD rejection. The latinization issue ground to a halt with this analysis: changes in the more distant past were latinizations, ipso facto changes now are latinizations. And so on.

What we have largely engaged in is a kind special pleading - ill-defined or novel, invented standards to rationalize an opinion. And some poisoning the well perhaps to promote an agenda. Although lacking cogency, these discussions certainly do have the value of expressing to whomever may be reading - as Nec put it - the hurt that people feel. But let's not confuse them with scholarly disagreements.

Tony,

the Admin has consistently objected to the anaphora's being prayed (read "canted") aloud. But for those of us in Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys this has been the practice (Although some in Passaic have stated on this forum that the anaphora is recited). This rubric would provide a norm for the whole Metropolia.

Dear Deacon John,

Is that all?

Administrator,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that There are at least two instances where contrary documentary evidence (the books, in other words) exist.

1) The 1950/1964 Spanish language liturgikon "La Divina Liturgia de San Juan Crisostomo" issued by Rome, "preparada por el Pontificio Instituto Oriental, con la autorizacion de la Sagrada Congregacion para la Iglesia Oriental," that is, prepared by the Pontifical Oriental Institute, with the authorization of the Sacred Congrgation for the Oriental Church, offers the option of distributing communion to the faithful by intinction, with the hand. Obviously the Melkite usage. This option is not reflected in any modern EO liturgika that I am familiar with.

2) The Slovak language service book for use by GCs in Slovakia makes a change in the Trisagion sequence that AFAIK is also not found in any current EO liturgical books.

The categorical statement "[n]o one has officially changed the standard" reaches beyond the Ruthenians and beyond the USA. The standard has been changed in other GC publications.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your post. I don�t have the time at the moment to prepare a full list but I found a reasonably complete listing at the bottom of page 3 of thread �New Byzantine Catholic�. Item #3 is incorrect (I know parishes that still pray the Beatitudes and have not been censored � the text for them is in the proposed Liturgicon). Items #6 and #8 are �Passaic Only�.

Again, I believe that it is wrong to change the standard when no other Byzantine Church (Catholic or Orthodox) is contemplating doing so.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Please read my message to you below.