www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy News Regarding the New Translation of the Divine Liturgy

I read through the "new" lturgy a while back at my priest's suggestion. There are many subtle changes, enough to annoy many different people coming from many different backgrounds. But, I say annoy, as opposed to something stronger, because I do not see how the changes can be that volatile, especially after all of the analysis, etc. that went on to bring it to fruition.

The things that annoy me are the things that I may trip over when I expect something to go a different way. That's what I run into now and then on psalms in different services which are all in different translations. I find myself stumbling over the words, so I have to pay closer attention to get it right. No harm in that, is there?

What would worry me more would be for local clergy to take it upon themselves to pick and choose what they do, and how they do it, without having episcopal approval for it. That might lead to a far greater problem for the entire community.

I see this change as a done deal, and I believe that there are more important things for us to dwell on in terms of our personal and collective salvation, because, after all, the liturgy is ongoing, not just a finite event on Sunday morning. It is happening for all time.

Where and why is the existing Liturgy deficient? If it is not, why are changes necessary?

It seems simply in the asking of yet unanswered rudimentary questions brings one to the de facto level of I think I have come to another conclusion - that if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
FDD

Yes, Diak I agree. It is, afterall, the faithful who are responsible to guard what was passed on to them.

Cathy

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

Stand for what? If I don't get my way I'm leaving? I believe that those doing the most griping will be the least affected. The parishes that are the most Easternizied are not going to stop doing what they are doing, be it all the verses of the antiphons, all the litanies, or anything else. I think these same people were hoping their way would be forced on every parish whether they were ready for it or not. Now that something less than their expectation is occurring they are talking of jumping ship? Clergy included?

The funny thing is those I have spoken to that have threatened to leave in my area are threatening to go to the local Latin parishes. Why? The changes are to Orthodox! By this I think they mean a couple of added litanies or prayers are going to make the Liturgy 5 minutes longer than they are used too.

I believe the great majority of the people will not notice or care about the relatively minor changes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Left the Catholic Church? No. If they attend a branch of the Church that is still in comunion with Rome, then (by definition) they haven't left the Catholic Church.

Having gone away to sulk? Maybe. I can't read hearts. There are a lot of people in the Catholic Church --Roman and other rites-- who are displeased with the liturgy. Some of them are filled with anger and hate over it and others are simply fed up. Some stay where they are and deal with it; others go someplace else where they find a better fit. Sometimes that is within the Catholic Church; others leave the Catholic Church for another church where they feel they are a better fit.

Quote

This seems a rather broad brush of judgment here. Someone might consider your movement to the BCC from the Romans on the surface to be in a similar light.
FDD

Partially that was true.

But, I was advised not to leave one part of the Church and join another part of the Church out of anger. Instead, I was counselled only to change jurisdictions if it would be a better way to God for me.

So, I calmed down and prayed and explored and so on.

And, I discovered that I like the Eastern side of the Church for its own merits. And that is why I am petitioning to join it.


Along the way, I have come to realize three things about all of this.

1) The Catholic Church is broad and diverse in its members, cultures, tastes and so on. So, the style of liturgy that works for some will not work for others. The styles of liturgy that are replusive or neutral to me are very moving for others . . . and vice versa.

2) If possible, people should go to the part of the Church (liturgically) in which they are the best fit. Otherwise, they will just be immensely frustrated.

3) As long as the fullness of the Gospel (as taught by the Catholic Church) is preserved and presented at the liturgy, I really don't become upset anymore about the differences or changes in liturgical style. I have found where I fit; and I hope others find likewise.

In fact, this is one of the things that makes me happy to be Catholic. As long as the fullness of the Catholic faith is taught and respected, there is substantial diversity of ways for people to express that.

-- John

My question is: Why?

Mike, stand in line for an answer. We wait, without much of an attempt at obtaining feedback from the sensus fidelium, which includes the clergy.

Noone has yet answered - is the existing Liturgy deficient? If so, where and why? If not, why the changes? Those are quite straightforward questions.

No, not at all. I think the same could be said of the revisionists. It is, of course, impossible to keep everyone satisfied. Ultimately it's not my way that counts at all. I was thinking of standing more in terms of for our received tradition and what Rome has specifically allowed us to do via the Ordo, her counsels to us via the Instruction, etc., that's all.

You mentioned: And what assurances do you have that the "new liturgy" won't be imposed equally across the Metropolia in the name of consistency? With the way this has been handled to date, please pardon my skepticism.

First of all, could you clarify a bit of who "these same people" are? This seems to border on the outrageous. There was no commission formed to recommend imposing whatever you were alluding to on anyone - unless you know something we don't. Rather the "forced on every parish" may well be the "new liturgy".

Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but it seems that wanting to keep what we have (or could have in terms of what is currently allowed and available), wanting a decent explanation of what is deficient in our Liturgy, why change is needed and where those need to be made, garners the "forcing it on every parish" or "jumping ship"? I must be missing something here. My only "expectation" is to go to my parish and pray with them in the way they are accustomed to. I am not serving them otherwise.

What's broke that needs fixing?
FDD

Jim - I'm a bit confused here. Can you elaborate on what you are talking about? With the exception of the altar Liturgikons not very much material in the Metropolia has "episcopal approval".

Since we are talking about the Divine Liturgy here, are you implying that "clergy" are using non-approved Divine Liturgy texts? I'm talking about the Liturgy, as it is the subject of this thread. And if it is a local issue, as you say, why would it be a concern of the "larger community"? What is the "larger community" in the sense you are speaking of? Thanks for bearing with me.
FDD

We have churches closing, people leaving the Church on a daily bases, a seminary which is virtually empty, and a sex abuse scandal occurring. Meanwhile, the Church is spending thousands of dollars and man-power toward Liturgical changes.

Is it just me or is something seriously wrong with this picture?

Is it possible that there has not been a consulation process here? Looking from the outside and based on the comments that it seems to be a top down only job. I may be wrong here.

I liked Fr David's comments and it reminded me of some changes that the late Archbishop Paul of all Finland did to the Liturgy in his church, where he had all or most the Priest parts of the Liturgy full voice. We down here have to get new books for the congregations as the 'Our Father' has one word difference in it now in Ukrainian. So English texts are not the only ones making publishers rich.

If people move on at any stage it will be for various reasons, it just maybe that for some this is the last straw. If it is not one thing it will be another.

The Latin Rite is still slugging it out over what is 'good English' and a good and faithful translation. There have been 2 versions of everything as I see it so far, the USA English and the UK English camps plus those who want inclusive language and others. So going into English is not going to be easy and some are not going to be happy at the end of the day. My guess is that when the new RC Missal hit the stands there will be a number of changes that will cause a few problems for some. The General instuction will be interesting reading for the RCs as well.

Let us hope that there are different types of service books for the laity and some will have the bare bones and some will have what the Priest has.

ICXC
NIKA

Diak, I will PM to you on your latest question.

Brother Deacon Randolph:

I understand members (or at least one member) of the IELC traveled to the eparchies of the Metropolia and made presentations of the revised DL to the clergy. Having been present at our clergy meeting, I also know that ample time was given for questions. My questions to you are this- did you not attend the meeting, do you just dismiss the need for the revision, or do you dismiss the responses to your questions from the presenter?

Father Deacon Lance,

I fail to how using inclusive language for example would be 'doing what they are doing', unless of course you are saying that they could continue to say 'mankind' instead of 'humankind' etc. Not sure what your 'anything else includes.

I think the real question here is, let's say they keep doing what they have been doing, and four years from now a new priest is tranferred into the church. And the new priest decides to follow the 'New Translation' to a tee. So out with all the verses of the antiphons, all the litanies, or anything else.(to use your quote) I'll also add removal of the curtain and no more opening and closing of the doors (meaning only open at the beginning and closed at the end).

Wouldn't the new priest be able to do this since he would be following the new rubrics laid out in the 'New Translation' (see how it is more than a 'New Translation'?) People could complain that 'their way'(as supporters of the 'New Tranlation' love to say) was not being followed until they were blue in the face. But the priest would be 'correct' because he would be following what was the official Liturgy. Or could the 'pre-NT' ways still be followed?

So isn't this 'oh you Easternized ones will still be able to do all your 'old' practices' just patronizing in its purest form, because down the road it will be too late for all these old-fashioned fuddy-duddy Easterners to preclude the 'New Translation' in their parish.

I especially get a kick when supporters of the 'NT' talk about 'their expectation' ,'their way' , 'their opinion' etc.
Now I can only speak from the 'Easternized' angle. You know, us crazies who think that Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council (which talks about no kneeling on Sunday) is still in effect. Or another wacky idea we have is it's okay to have Liturgy for longer than an hour. Or that pews are in the way of doing proper prostrations. Of course these things are all 'our way' and 'our opinions'. In fact we are all having a secret meeting today and coming up with the idea of having this thing called Vespers on Saturday. Yeah, Saturday evenings, that's it.


Is this supposed to make us 'Easternized' types say, 'well, see we are getting 'our way' because this is too Orthodox after all. And here we thought is wasn't 'Orthodox' enough.'?

Just because some think that this is 'too Orthodox' doesn't make it 'too Orthodox'. The salient point is that this 'NT' breaks us away from our historical connection to our Motherland and away from our Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers (and sisters, or maybe I should have said humans). Now before the cries of xenophobe go out, the only point that I wanted to make here was that it is ashame that instead of working toether and coming closer to the UGCC for one, we are going the other way. I'm sure there is a spin as to how this brings us closer. We currently at least share the same recension, and now we won't. It's moving away, not closer.

If it is so minor then let's not do it. I've said before on here that instead of putting all our time and effort into the 'NT', why not direct it towards an evangelization program to bring in more people. With shrinking numbers and a greying congregation of more funerals than baptisms this would be the prudent way to use our resources. But no, we spend our time and energy on the 'NT' and meanwhile there are parishes in Northeast Ohio for example that are sinking faster than a ship without a hull.

mc

Regarding the socalled proposed new Liturgy: do we run the risk of we Ukrainian Greek Catholics and Pittsburgh Archeparchy Byzantine Catholics no longer considering each other as brothers and sisters, but as cousins?

What is puzzling is that one small branch of the entire Eastern Catholic Church takes it upon itself to revise the Divine Liturgy. That's one step forward for some BC bishops and many steps back for our Eastern Catholic Church.
How sad!

Our brother MC raises quite valid concerns. Pavloosh's concern is utterly to the point - why would any one jurisdiction deliberately undertake to move away from everyone else on the matter of the Divine Liturgy, when we should be seeking for our common identity? If it were not forbidden to think such a thing, I would be inclined to suspect that someone is willfully seeking to ignore and destroy that common identity.

Incognitus