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

The point of interest in this case is to know precisely what was approved - a most relevant question, since the present "New Translation" has itself been altered several times over the past six years.

The process I advocate of surveying certain parishes to see what has or has not happened in response to what stimuli is in a sense open-ended: if anyone suggests that there are peripheral causes for the alleged phenomena it is no great difficulty to investigate those at the same time. But ruling out such an investigation completely without even making the effort strikes me as downright dishonest, as epitomized in the aphorism "my mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

Incognitus

I will comment briefly, since my view is that of a outsider...somedays I wonder how many people truly understand the liturgy and practices during their worship(be it East or West)...I can visit all 3 Latin Rite parishes near me and find many differences in liturgical practices and yet they should really be the same with very limited and slight variances, no wonder there is so much confusion.

Be patient and charitable when addressing this holy subject my Eastern brethern...it easy to detour from the true intent and path.

james

ps- A few priests and some others have told me that the Church is not a democracy regarding this subject and other matters, which also adds/lends to much confusion...

A good study would be good; a bad one would be bad - and is best avoided, IMO, because it is so difficult to quash errors arising from poorly executed studies. A priori identification of selected factors as "peripheral" does not make for a good study.

James,

Good Advice!

I will try to take it to heart.

First of all, who is "making excuses"? What are the "excuses"? I saw a comparison of "wanting their own way" with a likening of schismatics above. But later your statement "those who would end up leaving for the Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian or Latin Church are not guilty of any sin" further seems to complicate the initial comparison. So for some who leave, there is no sin, but not others? Some are "like the SSPX" who may want to leave over the NT but not others?

Your initial blanket comparison seems to be getting further lost in obfuscation. I strongly disagree with the NT but would not presume to judge the conscience of my brethren who do not accept by likening them to schismatics (as well as those who do accept it) as you have.

That is between them and God. "Excuse" is not part of the equation. I pray for them on their pilgrimage. It's their decision to make, regardless of what I think about it. It's called free will.

Again, I've not heard anyone say they are going to the RCs and would have a bit of difficulty actually believing that. All I have heard this from have discussed going to other ECs or Orthodoxy. But if they opted for the RCs, again that is their discernment and I leave the judgment for God regarding this or that "excuse".
FDD

Jim, having cantored in UGCC and Ruthenian parishes of course I realize there are differences between samoylka and prostopinje.

But as I mentioned not all OCA parishes have eliminated all "particular" music as in the cases of the Romanians and Bulgarian OCA dioceses (have never been to a parish of the Albanian diocese, Andrew perhaps can tell us if they have retained their chant traditions).

I don't necessarily disagree. I will say that in many UGCC parishes they often use a wider mix of Galician and Kyivan music and some prostopinje (many of the Lenten melodies, for example, can be quite similar between the two)..

Since our evangelical mission has long ago gone beyond the "nash", why claim "purity" of only one type of chant for people who have absolutely no connection with that original culture? What does that mean? We already have a mixture of melodies within the "pure" chant, whatever that is.

I think the OCA and Antiochians have both done well with using a wider range of music from the Constantinopolitan tradition. You don't have to eliminate all traces of one for the other.
FDD

This is true; people often forget about these "ethnic" diocese of the OCA! However, it could be said that they retain their liturgical and musical traditions because they are administratively seperate from the "mainstream" of the OCA. Also, it should be noted that the OCA Romanian Episcopate has their own (quite wonderful!) translation of the Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services (using "You-Your" English, "Birth-giver of God" and other notable differences from the common OCA translation). I believe the Albanians often use the translations by Bishop Fan Noli. So, even in one jurisdiction there is a lot of variety.

Dave

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

If you believe that it is okay for people to leave our Church over some rubrical and translational changes I disagree with you. Although I am unclear whether you are saying this or not.

If their only reason for leaving is the Liturgy, yes I accuse them of having a mindset like the those in the SSPX, even if they don't actually go in to schism as the SSPX did.

I believe it is our duty as deacons of this Metropolia to admonish people to stay regardless of our personal feelings on the NT.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you for the clarification. So you do liken them to those who have openly broken with Rome, even though they haven't and would not be "in sin". Poor analogy at best, offensive dismissive judgment at worst.

I disagree. I believe it is my duty as a deacon to something much larger - to preserve, guard and foster the Faith. "Preserve, O Lord"... as we sing often at the Divine Praises. With the priest I have to lead them in prayer. If my conscience is not settled, nor those of the faithful regarding a new lex orandi, I cannot do that with the proper disposition.

I won't cast aside directives from Rome, nor will I ignore an NT that may also be simalteneously creating even newer differences and further dividing us from our Orthodox brethren. Like Fr. Elias, I pray this NT is not promulgated.
FDD

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

We will have to agree to disagree. It is not for us to interpret or apply Rome's directives that is for our bishops.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear me,
It is seldom that one finds a blatant bias against scholarship on this forum (which presumably means that we are blessed with lots of people who strive to be intellectually respectable). But djs's latest post comes close:

"A good study would be good; a bad one would be bad - and is best avoided, IMO, because it is so difficult to quash errors arising from poorly executed studies. A priori identification of selected factors as "peripheral" does not make for a good study. "

A bad study of ANYTHING, is best avoided, for reasons which require no explanation. But why the seeming assumption that a study which has not yet been formally proposed, let alone made, will probably be bad? My posting suggested - and I gladly repeat the suggestion - that such a study should be open to the consideration of many factors, including peripheral ones.

The category of "peripheral factors" is not sheer moonshine. It's amazing the excuses people come up with sometimes - if someone leaves the parish because there's not enough garlic in the varennyky that is not as convincing as someone leaving the parish because the priest is using wafers instead of Prosphora (it has happened).

I am not seeking to "excuse" people who leave the Church over issues of ritual. It is an observable fact that people sometimes do that. It is not ridiculous to suggest that with this in mind, it is prudent to be patient with change, and to be cautious and careful in striving to determine in advance just how necessary the proposed change might be. Never forget the Old-Ritualists; they stand as a warning to the hasty and precipitate (besides, I like them and I believe that they have been hard done by).

I notice that in more than one previous posting Father David has been a trifle negative concerning the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. I wonder why this is - that judicatory is not known for liturgical innovations, nor for acting hastily. If nothing else, that means that they act as what researchers call a "control group", reminding us of various elements that others may have lost, and enabling us to consider what has been gained or has not been gained by retaining those elements. But it's a lively, vibrant Church, which may not necessarily please some people.

We have also just been told off by someone asserting that Jesus doesn't care in the least whether we open and close the Royal Doors as prescribed or not. But it strikes me that people who claim to adopt that position are nevertheless remarkably uncomfortable and upset when some priest does, in fact, open and close the Royal Doors as prescribed. If Jesus doesn't care, why does the critic care?

Incognitus

Well Incognitus, you're right. And the reason we're getting lip service on the ROCOR Church is that it's hard to argue about something that is working, and obviously something in the ROCOR church is working. In an article posted a few months ago about St. George Russian Orthodox Church [news.enquirer.com] in Cincinnati, they are growing quickly and are getting ready to build a $3 million dollar complex. Their website says they are comprised of roughly half immigrants & half converts. Their services are in Russian and English. What does that tell us? Being traditional is not out of "style." The Roman Catholics could probably "second" that.....

Deacon Lance, if I get to the "Pearly Gates," can I quote you on that???


You know what, you don't get to use that excuse. Time and time again we've been told we should not look at what other Eastern & Orthodox churches are doing, we should just blaze the trail. The problem is, the Byzantine Church doesn't even have a good sense of who it is, where it wants to be, and most importantly how to get there!


"But while we're correcting these errors in the Divine Liturgy, well, we're going to change the rubrics, take out some Litanys and add some inclusive language. And gosh, we hope no one will notice or get upset because, afterall, Jesus doesn't care, why should they?"

Goodness, I hope you're right. But I'll refer to mom on this one...."God works in mysterious ways."

JMHO,
Cathy

Dear incognitus,
Your twisted sense of my comment as being against scholarship is really quite a hoot. Hard to imagine how you could miss the mark so very badly. I am, as stated, against bad scholarship - with examples from these threads in mind. The first is a minor one, but it should be an obvious one: identifying factors, a priori, as peripheral - even the ones that you add to the discussion now - is an excellent way to introduces bias. This is bad practice and should be avoided - to again understate the case. The more important point is this. A number of posters have already made arguments from very limited "studies" (anecdotes from this or that parish), with no controls, and no factor analysis. Such arguments have been posted with the claim that they "prove" something or other. Of course they don't - even though they may be interesting enough to motivate a serious study. In this climate of glib assertions of proof, I feel it worthwhile to underscore the non-triviality of a serious study.

djs - anecdotal evidence does have some value. But a scientific, dispassionate study has greater value. To be sure of impartiality, it is possible to bring in an outside research group who specialize in this sort of thing, agree on the parameters (which should themselves be available for all to read) and turn them loose to do the work.

As for my accusation of a bias against scholarship, that is exactly what dismissing a study before it has been made and before the parameters have been determined, let alone discussed, is.

Incognitus