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

"Fr. Deacon, that still does not get at the heart of your categorization of those who "want it their own way". I still ask who these people are?"

Any people who are threatening to leave because of the changes. Some wil leave because they think the changes are Latinizations or modernizations. Some will leave because they think the changes are Orthodoxification. In either case they are leaving because their status quo has been encroached upon and they want their way. I view them much like the SSPX.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I'll withold blanket judgment of them, given the nature of the process as well as the still yet unanswered questions regarding the new translations, issues of horizontal inclusivity, etc. which have been discussed amply on this Forum. I still strongly doubt your assertion that they de facto "want it their way". Perhaps all they "want" is what has been allowed via the existing Liturgy and Ordo.

As they are not consecrating bishops without Rome's approval I am not going to throw them into the class of schism as you have insinuated. I will continue to try to minister to them as well as everyone else.
FDD

This is an interesting thread and I am thankful to all who have posted here. I am especially thankful to Father Petras. He is a busy man and could certainly find better uses for his time then to participate here. All of us could probably be well served by cutting our Forum time in half and devoting that saved time to prayer and repentance. But, since the discussion is here and underway, I will add my two cents.

Father David wrote:
When the Liturgy is celebrated, �it is time for God to act,� (NT) and this is always wondrous and beautiful, no matter how poorly the Liturgy may be celebrated. So it is not a question of �brokenness.,� but why not try to do it well?? Why not try to do it better???

But this is the question!! I am sure that you are sincere and honest in your belief that your proposed revisions to the Divine Liturgy (rubrics and texts) are an improvement. Many of us � including me � disagree strongly. Oh, yes, I agree that that incorrect translations need to be fixed. But I disagree that a rewrite of the rubrics is either an improvement or beneficial to the Church. And even in the matter of fixing incorrect translations one must be careful. The smallest change to the Liturgy affects people�s intimate relationship with the Lord. I saw an interview with RC Cardinal Pell a few weeks ago in which he stated that many of the less than perfectly accurate translations in the RC Mass would be retained in the updated translation simply because the people are so use to them and that it is wrong to force them to change.

I look at the example of my local parish, at what the revisions already mandated have accomplished.

Sunday participation at the Divine Liturgy has fallen about 30% since the revised rubrics were mandated in the Passaic Eparchy. Nothing else has changed.

Participation at the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts has fallen almost 75%. At the last Friday Presanctified Liturgy using the old Levkulic edition there were 120 people. At the first Presanctified Liturgy using the revised Presanctified (essentially Father Petras� preference in abbreviations) on the first Wednesday of the Fast several years ago there were 130 people. At the second Presanctified Liturgy using the new books and rubrics there were 30 people. I do not believe the average participation has ever risen above 35 or 40 people since then, and it has been at least 5 years using the Revised Presanctified. This past Friday evening as I left the parish center after stopping for some Lenten food there were only 15-20 cars in the parking lot. This was just minutes before Presanctified was to begin.

Participation at the Holy Week services has also fallen dramatically. The Paschal Matins and Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom late on Holy Saturday night used to attract 300-350 people. The mandated Vespers / Basil / Pascha Matins now attracts only about 65 people. Most of the other 250-300 people are not going to other Liturgies. They are either going somewhere else or nowhere at all.

What are people saying about the revisions? Most say nothing. Some say that it�s just not the same. Many have simply stopped coming. I cannot blame them. Texts and rubrics they have known all their lives are now forbidden, as if they were defective. The relationship they developed with the Divine Services over a lifetime has been altered without consulting them. This major renovation of their Church home has left them homeless. I pray that they will find a new home in another Church since the Ruthenian Church has changed so much it is no longer home to them.

I speak to priests and cantors on a regular basis. The stories differ from parish to parish but no one is speaking of resurgence in their parish because of the revised Liturgy. The parishes that are growing all seem to be those which are more traditional in their celebration of the Liturgy.

How can anyone consider revisions that chase people away to be an improvement?

A few months ago one of our priests told me of a visit to another priest. Just before the start of the weekday morning Divine Liturgy the host pastor pulled out a couple of �red books�. They celebrated the traditional Liturgy (now banned in Passaic) in conformity with the 1964 Liturgicon and rubrics. The priest told me that it was like being in heaven. After 7 or 8 years of the new rubrics even the clergy are not finding a home in them.

Father David wrote:
As a scholar of Liturgy, I know that the very nature of the Liturgy is to resist change, it is really difficult to propose change, but there are ways it can be improved, and I thought I was making this clear - that the priests role needs to be restored is the major concern that should be focused upon.

The priest�s role is fine just the way it is. People do not need to hear every prayer the priest says in order to say �Amen.� In the litanies the priest has his prayer to pray quietly. The deacon prays his petitions. The people pray their �Lord, have mercy�. It�s already a masterpiece. It does not need to be changed to move more focus on the priest. The Liturgy is not just the work of the priest to which the people merely give assent to on an intellectual level. It is the work of the Lord among the entire community of believers present. The idea that the priest must be made even more central than he already is is very specious. It is certainly not an Orthodox approach to Liturgy.

Father David wrote:
Someone brought up the question of the doors of the icon screen. Here again, I favor more openness - the icon screen is not meant to be a �barrier� between the Holy place and the community.

I respect those who favor more openness. But why force this personal opinion upon the entire Church? Why not have respect for those who wish to follow the rubrics of the Ruthenian Rite? I don�t see those who seek the fullness of the Ruthenian recension demanding that there be a mandate to force every priest to follow the door rubrics.

Regarding the translation errors in the 1965 edition (the �red book�), I agree that a new printing with some corrections is in order (one that does not change the rubrics!). But even here one must take care. The smallest change affects people on an intimate level. I�d have to go and look again, but I don�t think the words to the Lord�s Prayer have changed. I�m sure that this is because it is obvious that changing the Lord�s Prayer would cause great havoc in the Church. The people have prayed the current translation their entire lifetimes and the benefits of changing a few words would not outweigh the destruction that would be caused by mandating a change. The same is very true of hymns like �It is truly proper�. Everyone knows them by heart. Forty years from now those who were raised with the current translation will still have them imprinted on their mind, and never the new one. Is it respectful to the people to do this to them? It seems best to introduce only those changes which are absolutely necessary. Changes in a text prayed by the deacon or priest are far easier to accomplish than even a minor change in the people�s texts.

As I have already noted previously, I continue to pray that the bishops do not implement the proposed revision to the Divine Liturgy, and that where some or all of the revised rubrics have been implemented that they be withdrawn. I continue to pray that the bishops only prepare a new printing of the 1965 Liturgicon, one that changes no rubrics and one that only admits changes that are absolutely necessary. Yes, we certainly have many parishes that do not keep an acceptable observance of the Ruthenian Liturgy. The correct response is not to revise the Liturgy. The correct response is to encourage a good celebration, and to hold those parishes which do have a good celebration up as examples for what is possible and what can become the norm for our Church.

With respect,

Admin

It's only going to get WORSE! I have spoken to various people in the Eparchy of Passaic who indicate they may leave the Church and either join another rite or become Orthodox.

Don't fool yourself this is a very serious matter to many people.

Father Deacon Lance,

Please consider that those who leave will most likely do so because the changes have made their Church cease to be a home for them. When a Church stops being a home people tend to leave and seek a home elsewhere. I understand this personally because � like many others - I am not at home wherever the Revised Liturgy is celebrated. Instead of leaving, however, I work as best as I can to promote a return to authentic Ruthenian Liturgy. I hope and pray that one day the fullness of the Ruthenian recension will be the norm in our parishes.

This is not a matter of people �not getting their way�. Such an idea is insulting. Those who seek the celebration of the Liturgy according to the fullness of the Ruthenian recension as directed and asked by the larger Church cannot be accused of �not getting their way�. It seems to me that accusations of this type belong to only to those wishing to depart from the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension and do not get their way.

Admin

Esteemed Administrator,

My sentiments exactly!

Ungcsertezs- (who still hopes to visit the Rusyn homeland sometime this year in order to participate in the "fullness of the Subcarpathian-Rus' recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church tradition" in the originial Church Slavonic musical settings, Daj Bozhe!)

Fr. Deacon Randolph

"Perhaps all they "want" is what has been allowed via the existing Liturgy and Ordo."

That's all the SSPX wanted after the NO was promulgated. They wanted it so much they were willing to go in to schism and remain there so far.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Admin.,

"I understand this personally because � like many others - I am not at home wherever the Revised Liturgy is celebrated."

I am sad to hear that. I am at home where ever I serve Liturgy, Ruthenian-served according to Red Book, Blue Book, Gray Book, or New as yet to be colored Book, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite, or Roman-NO or Tridentine. My Lord is present and I am at home regardless of translations or rubrics.

"Please consider that those who leave will most likely do so because the changes have made their Church cease to be a home for them. When a Church stops being a home people tend to leave and seek a home elsewhere.

We all have preferences, but to make our preferences, whether they are the old way or the new, the standard by which we will attend Liturgy or consider it home is not excusable. I understand it on the psychological level. On the theological level it is ridiculous. What sense does it make for a person to say: They don't do Liturgy the way I am used to so I will go to a Latin parish (wherer they certainly won't do Liturgy the way they are used to) or not go at all and deprive themselves of the grace of the Mysteries and sin by not giving God the worship He is due?

"This is not a matter of people �not getting their way�. Such an idea is insulting... It seems to me that accusations of this type belong to only to those wishing to depart from the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension and do not get their way."

Again I have yet to see anybody in favor of the new translation threaten to leave if it is not implemented, the way many opposed to it have threatened to do if it is.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"The idea that the priest must be made even more central than he already is is very specious. It is certainly not an Orthodox approach to Liturgy."

I think the point Father was trying to make was that the priest's prayers are important and need to be heard. The GOA, OCA, and AOA are all struggling with this issue with those writing the articles I am reading in favor of the priest taking his prayers aloud.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Please consider withdrawing your comparison of those who support the traditional Ruthenian Liturgy with who might leave over the revisions as equal to the SSPX who have separated themselves from the Church.

First, Rome has not directed our Church to make any changes. In fact, she has given us direction to keep our liturgical celebration as Orthodox as is possible, even to the point of preparing common editions of the liturgy books (which I realize is difficult at present). The authority of our bishops to make such major changes to the Liturgy is doubtful (as has already been much discussed). It is very possible that their authority might be limited to translations and an instruction but not to rubrical changes. It is expected that many of the clergy (and faithful who choose not to leave) will appeal to the Holy Father directly to see if this is his will for our Church. Until the Liturgy is promulgated and appealed you can not accuse anyone of disloyalty.

Second, even if whatever appeals to Rome that are made are decided in favor of the Revisionists, those who leave to join another Catholic Church that follows the Ruthenian recension because our Ruthenian Church is not a home to them can in no way be compared to those who have separated themselves from the Church (like the SSPX folks). The fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy will still be blessed by the Catholic Church and found in the Ukrainian and Romanian Churches here in America. In Europe, of course, we do not see any effort in Uzhorod to revise the Liturgy and it may certainly be found there. At best, the Ruthenian Church in America will be the �odd man out�. We will be the one unilaterally departing from the Ruthenian recension.

Third, even if some should choose to join an Orthodox parish Rome has made it clear that it is not a matter of salvation. Rome does not look at Byzantine Catholics who chose to become Orthodox as it does Roman Catholic who choose to join the SSPX. Even now we find Rome finding a way to provide the traditional Roman Mass to serve the needs of these people.

Again, a comparison to the SSPX is not appropriate.

Admin

Dear Administrator:

Thank you for your kind words.

That you believe the Liturgy as it is (of course, in only some parishes) is beautiful and that any changes made to it, particularly by the IELC, are not an improvement is your opinion. It is not my opinion. I am aware that our positions on this are absolutely and without any reservation completely and totally diametrically opposed, so there is, as far as I can see, no basis for further discussion.

I do get weary of threats that if anybody changes anything, everybody will leave. When the Eparchy of Parma introduced communion to infants, one priest (in Chicago) warned that our churches will be empty in less than ten years - the people will simply not tolerate this �Orthodox� innovation and they will revolt with prejudice. The practice has, however, been accepted in parishes where the pastor has taken the time and pastoral effort to explain what it is about. I apologize for my cynicism, but I am amazed at how many priests claim that the parishioners always agree with them 100 %, and that everybody will leave if we change anything.

As far as the priest�s role being fine the way it is, I guess you can accept this if you are willing to admit that the priest�s role is the same as the deacon�s role. The reason I insist on this point is that the presbyteral prayers do open for the faithful the core reason for the Liturgy - that it is an anamnesis, a remembrance of the paschal mystery of our Lord�s death and resurrection. Christians should know this, and the deacon�s role and the people�s role do not convey it nearly as well, if at all.

I do have one serious question that I wish you would answer, and I am open to any explanation you might give. In your post you say,

�What are people saying about the revisions? Most say nothing. Some say that it�s just not the same. Many have simply stopped coming. I cannot blame them. Texts and rubrics they have known all their lives are now forbidden, as if they were defective. The relationship they developed with the Divine Services over a lifetime has been altered without consulting them. This major renovation of their Church home has left them homeless. I pray that they will find a new home in another Church since the Ruthenian Church has changed so much it is no longer home to them.�

My question is: �what are you talking about?� Please do not lecture me! I am not naive in this regard. I know how the Liturgy is celebrated in most of our parishes. The strict rubrics of 1965 are not observed, including the opening and closing of Royal Doors. I know of only 3 myself, though there may be more. However, the reality is that the vast majority of our parishes celebrate according to the Ruthenian style that has been observed since the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. You say �texts and rubrics they have known all their lives are now forbidden,� but then you have as a principle that we should follow the universal usages of world-wide Orthodoxy (which I abbreviate UUWWO, this from other posts), or from the previous post, �The correct response is not to revise the Liturgy. The correct response is to encourage a good celebration, and to hold those parishes which do have a good celebration up as examples for what is possible and what can become the norm for our Church � By this statement, I presume you mean follow the 1965 Liturgicon more exactly. If this were so, you are asking these parishes for just as much change - if not more - than the IELC is, and how does that make it easier to forbid �texts and rubrics they have known their whole life.� Please explain this. And, moreover, if we are going to simply celebrate the �Levkulic Presanctified� as the Liturgy which the people know and like and are familiar with - how does that help us conform to the UUWWO. The �Levkulic Presanctified� differs by far (and also proposes some presbyteral prayers to be said audibly, which principle you reject, except, of course, for the most important prayer which commemorates the whole purpose of the Presanctified) from the Roman recension on which the 1965 Liturgicon is based and from any practices of the UUWWO that I know of, and how does that aid your principle above, �The correct response is to encourage a good celebration, and to hold those parishes which do have a good celebration up as examples for what is possible and what can become the norm for our Church.�

A final remark, your response to Lance is simply in error. The so-called NT (New Translation) has been formally approved by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches (Prot. No. 99/2001, March 31, 2001).

Please, dear Administrator, do not misunderstand what I am saying. I respect you personally and I applaud you and thank you for the service you perform by providing a forum for discussion of these points so important for our lives as Christians. The reasons for my questions are that your statements seem to be self-contradictory, or to be understandable only if we admit the fantasy that the majority of our parishes actually follow substantially enough the �Roman recension� of the Liturgy (= the 1965 Liturgicon, except for the �Levkulic Presanctified�).

Admin.,

I said I view those who would leave our Metropolia over the NT much like I view the SSPX, i.e. obssessed with rubrics and having things the way they think they should be, that is how I view them it is not a comparison.

To Fr. Deacon's remark I simply pointed out the SSPX wanted the same and look where they ended up. This was a warning, again not a direct comparison. How could it be? The NT hasn't been promulagted and nobody's left yet!

And obviously those who would end up leaving for the Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian or Latin Church are not guilty of any sin. And while we don't hold the Orthodox to be in schism, a Catholic who leaves and joins the Orthodox with out a hierarch's blessing will at the very least be consider to be in an irregular situation.

If any comparison is to be made it is in attitudes I see displayed by both. I was in no way claiming those contemplating leaving are schismatic.

However, you failed to answer my questions. How do we excuse those who simply stop going all together? What is the rational behind going to a Latin parish, which is a completely different tradition that employs some of the very things they claim to be leaving the Byzantine parish for like inclusive language and the priest's prayers aloud?

Fr. Deacon Lance

I guess I should sign this post, "Very Confused," for that's what I am.

I must be missing something somewhere... the Administrator is referencing Liturgy changes that have occured over the years. In the almost 15 years I've been a member of the BCC, I've seen only a handful of changes* (from the congregation side of the icon screen that is). Fr. David, on the other hand seems to be referencing changes that are to come... correct?

Also, I'm curious as to what form/edition/book of the Divine Liturgy has been forbidden by Passaic.

* - Most of the changes I've noticed I thought were an improvement:
- Inclusion of all the tropars noted on the weekly music sheet produced by the administrator.
- Singing of Typica and Beatitudes during the Christmas and Great Fasts in place of First and Second Antiphons.
- Inclusion of Third Antiphon.
- Singing of "In You, O Woman Full of Grace" during Great Fast in place of "It is truly proper." (We use the "simpified" melody).
- There have been a couple of responses by the people that have been shortened, not in words but in "singing time."
- In all honesty, I can't speak to any recent changes to the Presanctified Liturgy, as we are unable to serve it our mission for a number of reasons.
- Since we only have Divine Liturgy the morning of Easter Sunday, we haven't run up against the Holy Saturday issues. The directives for HS, I will admit, seem to be all over the map from year to year.

Finally, I do have a concern with the Administrator stating that numbers have dropped because of Liturgy changes. It appears a causal relationship is being made where one may or may not exist.

Again, sorry for being so thick-headed, but I really am confused as to what changes are being discussed here... please enlighten.

A blessed Great Fast.

moncobyz,

We are about to have a New Divine Liturgy of Metropolitan Archbishop BASIL that is out of step with the other GCC's and Orthodoxy.

I believe the changes go into force after Pascha.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how what the UGCC or the various orthodox churches not in communion with Rome do or don't do with regard to their delivery of the Divine Liturgy makes a difference in this case. There are many differences in the content of Divine Liturgies within the various orthodox churches themselves- prayers for the catechumens, for example, which are not always done, depending on the jurisdiction. What is in the latest BCC edition is not heretical, and does not violate doctrines. In fact, it appears to have the blessing of all our hierarchs as well as the Vatican itself. As for other jurisdictions, none of them are in the habit of requesting approval from each other when a decision to change something in their own liturgy is being made. A violation or outright change of doctrine would be another matter. There, it is not unusual for jurisdictions to warn each other of potential problems, even possible withdrawal of inter-communion. But not in this case.