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

Anecdotal evidence has the value of suggesting hypotheses for study. It is not probative of much of anything, despite the number of times such evidence is posted as though it were.

Why bother persisting in the nonsense that I dismissed this study? I will repeat: my interest is in underscoring that such a study would need to be done seriously; and that interest in the gathering such data - in the climate here - needs, IMO, to be carefully and explicitly divorced from any hint that the posted anecdotes constitute probative data. That was my point. Not at all what you are suggesting, which as I said, is a real hoot.

Fr. I,

"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?"

I am not at all uncomfortable or upset if the doors are opened or closed according to rubrics, and in fact I have been known to serve where doors are opened and closed, even done the opening and closing myself. I just don't believe Our Lord cares either way and neither do I. It is not a grave matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

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

You may.

"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."

You know what, it is not an excuse it is a fact. I don't recall anyone saying we should not look at what Orthodox Churches are doing. In fact I have defended some of the changes as in line with what the Orthodox themselves permit.

"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?"

Please do not place words in my mouth. First, I had no hand in any of the changes. Second I am sure some people will notice and others will get upset. I just don't think any of it is grave enough to justify leaving our Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I thank Father David for his post (on page 4 of this thread). Before I respond to his main question I would like to again state that I am not against improvements in translations. I have noted numerous times that some of the proposed translations are indeed good corrections and improvements, but which are hiding behind inclusive language (which many of us find to be very offensive). But even those proposed textual changes that are good cannot simply be mandated, because one is dealing with the words people have used to pray for more than a generation.


Father David asked me what I was talking about when I stated that many people do not like the revisions to the Liturgy (here in the Passaic Eparchy we have a Revised Divine Liturgy and a Revised Presanctified Liturgy, revisions that are mostly rubrical and don�t yet have the textual changes). The topic of the Revised Liturgy is discussed everywhere by real people. I�ve summarized a few accounts of what I have heard in ordinary conversations. None are from my local parish and all have been given new names.

I am talking about Michael, a CPA with his own business who is in his early 60s. Michael takes time off from work to help at funerals and can always be found in the back of the church. He has the current texts to the Divine Liturgy and much of the old Levkulic Presanctified memorized. He sings a very nice harmony when the people are in key. The men in his family have been ushers in their parish for several generations now. One of Michael�s favorite services has always been the Matins service on Holy Thursday night. He remembers his grandfather, his father, and himself (as a child) taking turns to put out one of the candles after one of the twelve Gospels. He has done this all his life. Now that service is banned on Holy Thursday night. His priest rescheduled it on Holy Friday morning but hardly anyone came to it so it was cancelled entirely. Michael doesn�t understand this because all the Orthodox parishes still celebrate this service on Holy Thursday night.

Michael also has a lot of family members who are Orthodox. He and his wife host the family for December 25th and his cousin hosts everyone again on January 7th. His biggest hope when he goes into an Orthodox parish for holy days is that they will take the Liturgy in Slavonic. He can participate in Slavonic but their English words are different and he finds it somewhat frustrating.

Michael has also traveled a bit. He�s been to Uzhorod; to Russia and the Greek islands. He�s gone to Liturgy in each of these places and felt right at home. He knows the pope has told us to be like the Orthodox.

Michael also has a daughter who is grown and moved away. When he visits her they all go to the Ruthenian parish she and her husband worship at. It�s a good parish and the priest takes more of the Liturgy than his priest ever did.

About five years ago on the first Wednesday of Lent Michael went to Presanctified. There were new books and the priest said that the changes were mandated and they had to follow them. All the words were different. A lot of the melodies were different. At the end of the service Michael put the book back in the box. He never again went to Presanctified.


I�m talking about Irene. She raised three children and is retired after 35 years managing health care for the company she worked for. Her husband died about 7 or 8 years ago. Irene goes to Divine Liturgy each weekday morning (unless it�s snowing) and is always in the church kitchen whenever food is being prepared for some event. She grew up singing in the choir and remembers how hard the choir worked in the 1970s to learn the �English Mass�. Irene has a copy of the old little green Liturgy book from the 1960s that that she uses at every Liturgy. It�s held together with a rubber band and is stuffed with prayer cards. She doesn�t like all these changes. She doesn�t want to have to relearn the words to all of her prayers.


I�m talking about Danny, a cantor in his 50s who never wanted to be a cantor. When Danny was a kid he stood with Prof and Prof taught him how to sing. After Prof died the pastor asked him if he would be the cantor and Danny couldn�t say no. There was no one else. He admired Prof and tried to be just like him, sing just like him, and was just as devoted to his vocation as a cantor. Danny has spent thousands of hours over the years learning music, and was dedicated to singing it just the way he remembered Prof singing it. He manages to get to 7:00 AM Liturgy on the days when it is scheduled and has always rearranged his work and personal life to sing at funerals. In the last 5 or 6 years the way the priest celebrates the Liturgy has changed a lot, along with some of the words. Holy Week is a lot different, too. And now Danny is being told by his priest that more changes are coming. There will be new words and new music. Danny hears that what he spent a lifetime learning is now going to be forbidden to be sung in Church. Why did he spend 35 years learning it? Danny has never received a dollar for all his work. When the new Liturgy comes he thinks he will just retire from cantoring because �you can�t fight city hall�. The thing that bothers him the most, is that Prof had studied in the old country, and had passed on what he had brought back from there. Now Danny is told that Prof�s way is wrong, his way is wrong, and he feels torn. Even if he could re-learn everything, it feels disloyal to his Prof, and he�s just not sure he can do that.


I�m talking about Father Stephen, who has been a priest for over 45 years. He is a decent celebrant in the �middle Greek Catholic church style�. Father Stephen is a good man and a good pastor. He has the liturgicon memorized, but now admits he has forgotten a lot of the prayers in Slavonic because he doesn�t use much Slavonic anymore. After being a priest for 45 years he has no intention of learning all new words and rubrics, his eyes aren�t that good, and so having a lot of the prayers memorized is a big help. Maybe it�s time to retire? If he does retire can he keep using the Liturgicon he has memorized and prayed from all his priestly life? They are saying it will be forbidden.


People are what they eat. They are even more what they pray. Our Church has been using certain words and musical settings (good or bad) for over a generation now. No change is easy. Change that people don�t want is difficult. Their songs are who they are and their Church is telling them that their songs are wrong.

Why hasn�t the Roman Catholic Church issued their revised translations? They have been �ready� for something like 15 years? Why are they hesitant? Because they know that many people aren�t going to accept the changes and having the people on board and enthusiastic is necessary for any change to be successful. Because they know that they have but one chance each generation to make adjustments to the translations.

Why did the Church of England take 300 years to update its texts? Because they knew that people don�t like to make changes in the way they talk to God, even if it really is an improvement. They waited 300 years because they respected the people.

And hear we find that there are already changes to the changes even before the Revised Liturgy is even promulgated!

The faithful of our Church do see the problems our Church faces. Yet they know that the words they have used have nourished them and that the words are not the problem. They are not totally against change. They never wanted the shortcuts and abbreviations in their prayer. This was forced upon them by the bishops and the clergy. But they (at least those in the Passaic Eparchy) have seen the first round of changes (the rubrical ones and some of the texts) and they don�t like them. I have not taken an exhaustive survey. But I do listen to what people say and I know that a lot of people don�t like what is being forced upon them.

Again, my recommendation is that a new edition of the Liturgicon be published. It should contain only those changes that are necessary to fix egregious errors. It should contain absolutely no rubrical changes. Our Church is a member of the Ruthenian recension and we should keep the official texts and rubrics of the Ruthenian recension as our standard and work towards making it the standard in our parishes (a huge task, I know!).

Change � even good change � must be accomplished slowly. The bishops are not introducing something new here. Or even something old that had fallen into disuse (like infant communion). It is changing something old, something that is deeply part of our common memory, something that has formed our people for well over a generation now. It is much easier to learn a new song then to relearn a different version of an old one, one that you have sung all your life. Changes to two or three words in the people�s text every 10 or 15 years are more than enough. That is why it is so important to get good translations on the first attempt.

Father David also addressed several other points. I will respond to them in separate posts. I thank him again for his willingness to discuss these issues with us.

Admin

Father David,

I think I speak for all of us in saying we thank you for taking the time to talk to us about this issue. You are appreciated even if we don't agree with you.

I'm not sure one can attribute the fall in participation just because there was a change in rubrics. I would say that with the "graying" of congregations, seniors are not inclined to drive when it is evening.

After years of using the Levkulic Presanctified edition, we are now in our third Great Fast of using the Passaic edition. Attendance averages about 90 souls per week at the 2 Presanctified Liturgies. I would say there has actually been a net increase in attendance, after allowing for those seniors who can no longer attend evening liturgical services.

No one, not cantors, not the faithful, ever threatened to leave because we no longer used the Levkulic edition. In fact, new people came forward to learn to cantor and serve in the altar, but I will not say that is a result of using a new edition. As I posted above, there is a net increase after allowing for the elder members of the parish who have reposed in the Lord or no longer drive in the evenings.

Anecdotal evidence (a phrase I did not invent, by the way) can, especially if there is enough of it, demonstrate the need for a scientific study. If djs wants a scientific study, as he seems to, perhaps instead of knocking those who genuinely want a scientific study, he might propose the parameters and the goals of such a study. These could include, for instance:

a) the question of how well prepared people are, at this immediate moment, to welcome a new translation with enthusiasm and to make the adaptations which this will require;

b) the question of the extent to which a solid majority of the people do or do not perceive the proposed changes as a "recasting", not just as a new translation;

c) the degree to which the clergy and the faithful consider that this process, including the secrecy involved and what may be the haste with which it's imposition seems imminent, is genuinely needed and worth the bother;

d) the degree to which opponents of the project are exaggerating such evidence as is already available.


The accusation of fallacious "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning has also been heard, in attempts to dismiss the objections of Roman Catholic traditionalists. Does anyone seriously doubt that if the Roman Catholic liturgical practice had been followed by a doubling of the size of most congregations and a doubling of the enrollment in seminaries and noviatiates, the supporters of the liturgical reform in the Roman Catholic Church would have claimed the credit, and would have been righteously indignant at traditionalists who might have asserted that this "post hoc ergo propter hoc"?

One problem seems almost (but not quite!) insuperable - the adamant refusal on the part of the hierarchy and the commission to release either their proposed new text, or the six-year-old letter of approval which they claim to have from Rome. Clearly they want to present the clergy and the people with a fait accompli. That is not the way to ensure the success of a project which cannot possibly succeed without the support of the clergy and the people.

Stay tuned, everyone - this is by no means over yet!

Meanwhile, just for amusement, let me offer an example of quite successful anecdotal evidence: an acquaintance of mine, in the throes of some painful litigation in Connecticut, once threatened a certain legal maneuver. His opponent said, contemptuously: "You can't get a lawyer to do that!" . My acquaintance smiled, and responded with the question: "Have you met [name deleted]?" The lawyer, thoroughly deflated, said in a voice of despair: "You can get a lawyer to do it." and shut up. My acquaintance added the lawyer whom he had named to his legal team, and won the case.

Incognitus

Incognitus I hope you're right.

Dear Friends,

Forgive a liturgical peasant like me, but how, in general, would you characterize the issues at stake here?

After studying this thread for a bit, I come up with some of these reasons:

1) The changes will introduce an unnecessary liturgical divide between BC's and Orthodox, creating further distance between the two on this score when we're all trying to decrease it;

2) The changes seem to reflect a "spirit of this world" adaptation with respect to feminism (and it is heartening to hear that the Administrator is a "Christian feminist!" I thought only women could be that!

3) The changes introduce changes that will not serve to make the Lex Orandi of the Church more mystical, more true to Eastern form, but the reverse;

4) The changes are up to the Bishops i.e. "Vladyka Roman locuta, causa finita."

5) The way the changes are being done and promulgated makes them suspect;

6) The changes can and have served to get laity to leave parishes/the Ruthenian Church;

7) The changes ARE necessary, but, so far, only because the Bishops say they are.

And it would seem that the Administrator, DIAK and Incognitus are on one side of the fence, whereas DJS, Father Deacon Lance are on the other.

Now, I too belong to a Church with a bilingual liturgical tradition - Slavonic and Ukrainian . . .

The biggest upset we've had with the Ukrainian translations, however, is whether "ages" is "vikiv" or "vichni."

Somehow, we've prevented an internal schism over that one . . .

So, as Incognitus and djs are talking about scientific studies here, what are the "latent" reasons why the changes are or are not good - as opposed to the "manifest" reasons that I think have been more than adequately represented by the ablest of the able liturgical experts here!

Oops! Time to for me to take the discipline . . .

Alex

"And it would seem that the Administrator, DIAK and Incognitus are on one side of the fence, whereas DJS, Father Deacon Lance are on the other."

I would state once I am on no side. I don't really care for the new translation. I don't favor most of the changes. About the only thing I feel strongly about is that the Anaphora be chanted aloud. However, I don't think the changes are so serious that anyone should be contemplating leaving the Metropolia over it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread because, after all, I am not a member in the Byzantine Catholic Church.

But this discussion has become pertinent to a problem facing all Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora.

Identity.

Icognitus brought it up earlier. We as Eastern Catholics need to find a common one, because the way things are now, New Translation or not, things ARE going DOWN HILL.

I don't fault the dedicated pierogi ladies of the Coal Regions who faithfully attend every service. I don't fault the Academics and Clergy. I fault the bishops.

They continue to mislead us and fail to give us direction. They fail to give us identity. They fail to give us unity.

The people here who are frustrated with the NT are, IMHO, searching. And they should be. We are searching for identity and we get no help from the hierarchy.

-uc

Dear Ukrainian Catholic,
Thanks for your support. And please be assured that a Ukrainian Catholic fits any sensible definition of "Byzantine Catholic"!

Incognitus

Why a new Ruthenian edition of the Liturgy should differ significantly from what the ACROD has done in their excellent new pew-book, is beyond any logic I can come up with.

I think it is fatal for either group to grow further apart from each other.

The whole issue of secrecy on the part of the bishops makes me very nervous.

Manoli

Fr. Elias brings up a point that I remember from my younger days. We have to rid ourselves of latinizations so the Orthodox will know that nothing will happen to them if they join Rome. He says, �In many ways, ours is a "martyric" Church, a Church of sacrifice and self denial, a Church of patient waiting and hope, a Church willing to suffer if necessary, for the sake of the union of Churches, east and west.� Frankly, I don�t think this is realistic. The Orthodox consider us traitors and that�s the bottom line. Particularly in Greek circles, they consider us Roman Catholics in pseudo-Orthodox costume who imitate Orthodox rites to proselytize the Orthodox people. I don�t want to sound uncharitable, there are many very sympathetic and open Orthodox people, but there are very hard feelings also and our liturgical policies are not going to solve anything. Having said that, I think we should still be as faithful to our Eastern (= Orthodox) heritage as much as possible, for our own sake, for our own road to salvation, for our own enrichment and deification. Fr. Elias and I agree on the importance of conformity with the Eastern tradition, the difference is that he sees it in a more exact observance of rubrics. On the other hand, I believe that what the �new translation� will accomplish is a giant step towards the complete acceptance of the Eastern tradition. We might disagree on the presbyteral prayers, I see this as in no way a latinization, but the restoration of a true Eastern tradition, which many Orthodox also agree with. At this stage, I think our �martyric� witness as a Church is precisely that we are able to act pastorally for the welfare of our people, and that this witness will impress the Orthodox more than any other.

Fr. Elias also seems to advocate retaining a translation that corresponds to the (niconian) Textus receptus, and then the bishops can give supplementary instructions to the priests about how they want it done. Been there, done that. That�s how Bishop Nicholas (Elko) handled the 1965 translation. He, of course, maintained the latinized format and rubrics, and priests who deviated were punished. I would prefer a more integral approach myself. There is actually only one reason to favor such a �textus receptus� translation.

The Administrator in his most recent post tells a number of anecdotes. He has not yet addressed my central question of conflicting principles, so I�ll wait to respond to that. I am not a person without pastoral feelings, nor do I want to hurt anyone. It might be noted that it was a guiding principle for our translation that we changed the peoples� parts as little as possible. The priest�s prayers were changed more, but then, we are the professionals and we can handle this. What is interesting is that in these stories, I can change the circumstances slightly and make them all an equally valid argument for keeping the Liturgy in Church Slavonic and not translating it into English. Over fifty years ago, our Church made a courageous decision for that era, and there was much, much opposition. However, people saw that it was for the future of our Church, even my dear grandmother, who didn�t know English, but felt that the message of the Liturgy had to be conveyed to the youth. I remember those days, though I was only in adolescence then. This change of translation is comparatively minor. I think it also is a step forward for us, though the Administrator and I have no basis of discussion on this point.

Another point, I apologize to the Administrator if it seemed that I ignored his stories about the introduction of the Presanctified in his parish. I do not doubt his sincerity and honesty, but one conclusion that might be drawn from the story is that the people will not accept a closer return to Eastern traditions. The Passaic Presanctified is certainly a step away from the more minimal Levkulic format, but, if the people will not accept it, how can they possibly accept a return to the 1965 translation from the present �Greek Catholic� version used in most parishes (particularly in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy.) As pastor, I introduced the �new translation� of the Presanctified into two parishes - Dormition in Akron and St. Nicholas in Cleveland with no problems whatsoever. Or maybe the problem is music? Or is there some other extraneous circumstance to explain this? Do you not see the contradictions in this? I think the Administrator should concede one point, that much of what he is angry about is a Passaic issue. After all, the IELC has done nothing yet.

In response to Incognitus: The �New Translation� is a project of the Council of Hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia (sui juris). The project was initiated by them, they appointed the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission, they made the procedural rules, and we answered and reported to them. They are the ones who will promulgate the Liturgy, according to the laws of the Church. Part of this law is that the translation be reviewed by Rome to insure that there is no deviance from the authentic Eastern tradition. Rome has done this and has made that determination, and communicated it to the Council of Hierarchs. The promulgation will come from the bishops, and I presume they will make known Rome�s approval at that time. At present, it remains a communication to the Hierarchs. I mentioned the approval because it was being said on this forum that the bishops were acting without such approval.

Rome's approval???
Who exactly is "Rome"?