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

Dear Father David,
I have neither said nor implied that your hierarchs are acting without Rome's approval. I have asked, strongly, that the letter which conveys that approval should be made public without delay. Rumors are best scotched by honesty, truthfulness, and openness

Incognitus

Dear Father David:

I would have to agree with Incognitus on this point. We all know a letter was sent approving the text, and there were some very pointed comments regarding the structure of the liturgy.

I belive one of them dealt with how sorry Rome was to see that the Ruthenian church in America felt that it could no longer find time to sing all three verses of the antiphons..... There, I've let one secret out of the bag, it's your turn next.....

Oh, and by the way, Dormition in Akron is closed and St. Nicholas is a declining inner-city parish whose days are numbered, change Presanctified at a growing parish and see what you'd get. I bet the results would be much different.


John Scotus

Deacon John,

In your particular parish, what percentage are "craddle Byzantine Catholics" and what percentage are not? It is very easy for "newcomers" to accept anything handed out to them. You can't expect lifelong Byzantine Catholics who have used the c. 1965 English translations and rubrics and the Levkulic translations and musical setting to accept new changes without questioning these changes. It is not realistic to think that with one swift signature of the bishop that these changes will be easily accepted.

Ungcsertezs

Dear Folks, please note that I have been told that some have been offended at my personal comment and opinion...(3-08-06 post). Please forgive..! In apologia, i DID say, it was my opinion, and was not trying to persuade, or desuade(?? is that a word?) anyone. Please inform me, if you think it's helpful, and Thank you, Mik S Bohom

Dear Mike,
Hmmm. I was not particularly offended, but neither did I find that posting helpful - except for the amusement potential of "Otce Hash". I suppose the reason why that posting didn't seem helpful was that it didn't speak to the translation issue.

Incognitus

U-C:

I'm afraid I do not know the answer to your question regarding the percentage of "craddle (sic) Byzantine Catholics." To tell the truth, that type of question is not a requirement of Church membership. I do know that a majority of the faithful pre-date my family's membership.

I also know our cantors and the other members of the parish are men and women of prayer and evangelical zeal. The fact that their families are from Johnstown, Philly, Rahway, or Detroit are secondary. These are a people that seek to evangelize the local community and assist the parish community worship and praise the Holy Trinity no matter the bloodline.

The biggest complaints I personally receive are from those cradle Greek Catholics who say the cannot hear my sermon over the crying of our babies.

On second thought, I probably can answer your question. I know a overwhelming majority of our babies (including 4 of my 7 children) are cradle Byzantine Catholics.

I strongly disagree that "newcomers" will accept anything. You malign the intelligence and the faith of the members of our parish.

Then we agree to disagree on this subject. You don't think it to be true, but I think it is very relevent. ""Newcomers" will accept anything usaually without question. You can't expect "craddles" to accept all these changes without asking questions.

Ungcsertezs

Since I am from St. Thomas the Apostle Church I am more easily reminded that he wanted to see tangible proof in order to help him believe, but that Christ went on to say those who believe without having to see are blessed. How much of all this posting here should be considered simple human wordsmithing or engineering, and how much of all this should be considered as a genuine affirmation of our faith in God? Lots of prayer is needed, I think, in order to discern the Truth.

Incognitus,

You said above that "rumors are scotched by honesty, truthfulness and openness."

Well, as someone who has defended priests against nasty rumor mills over the years, I can tell you that is not necessarily the case.

If someone wishes to believe something about someone, then they will and will interpret documented "proof" in accordance with their own prisms of understanding.

However, Hierarchs can often "pull fast ones" while invoking the democratic imperative without actually having done adequate "democratic research."

In Chicago, I understand the then UGCC Bishop said he had conducted a "survey" on the use of the Old/New calendars.

He said the survey concluded that the New Calendar is the desired one . . .

The good people at St Volodymyr and Olha's (or who later founded this parish) did their own survey and found quite the opposite to be the case.

One thing led to another, as you know, and that parish came into being - that is independent of the Bishop, at least so far as I know.

Here in the Eastern Canada Eparchy, it matters NOT what the majority believes at all!

There are now parishes with English liturgies - but in my in-law's parish, do you know who is most opposed to English liturgies? The descendants of the first Ukrainian pioneers to Canada who today can barely speaka da language . . . since their ancestors were persecuted here for wanting to maintain their culture, language etc. they demand Ukrainian in the Liturgy or else!

In my former school where I taught religion, the principal wanted to reduce the times allotted for religion and so conducted an open, democratic survey.

And, democratically, she posted the results - about 90% of the school wanted the time for religion classes DOUBLED if possible.

So the principal decided I was being "too soft" on the students (why else would they want 'more of me?') and so HALVED the classes I was already teaching!

I then imitated my parents in escaping from what I perceived to be a dictatorship . . .

Alex

I thank Father David for his most recent post. There are several things in that post I would like to respond to, but I must start by finishing my response to his previous post.


Father David wrote:
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 think I must ask Father David to further explain his comments here. I don�t see the role of the deacon and the priest to be confused at all in the traditional Liturgy. The faithful have the same access to the core reason for the Liturgy whether the presbyteral prayers are prayed aloud for their hearing or quietly. Just like I don�t need the icon screen removed and the priest behind the altar facing me to fully participate I don�t need to hear his prayers in order to fully participate. The idea that it�s all about the words and the people must hear the words (of the anaphora) seems to move the focus from the action of the Holy Spirit through the priest and onto the words themselves. I guess I see the people�s role as not unlike that of the centurion. The Eucharistic Mystery is accomplished by the authority of the Lord in the person of the priest. My hearing (or not hearing) has no effect upon the reality that is present. I don�t need to see it or hear it to know it is true. I am primarily catechized by the prayers being prayed, not by hearing them being prayed. Lossky commented (I think about Eucharistic adoration) that Christ is not primarily shown in the Eucharist, He is given. For this discussion I�d change it a bit to Christ is not primarily heard in the Eucharistic prayers, He is given.

In any event, I have never once suggested that the priest be prohibited from praying the Anaphora aloud. The tradition offers the priest the choice to pray these prayers quietly or aloud. If it really is the will of the Holy Spirit that these prayers be prayed aloud He will make this happen in His own time, without the need for mandates.


Father David quoted me:
�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 � and then continued: 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.

Yes, I do mean that we should follow the 1965 Liturgicon more exactly. I know it is a difficult task. But I have seen priests who are enthusiastic about Liturgy actually lead their people from the lowest of the �Low Mass� style to a very complete Divine Liturgy (or at least one that was far more complete than the average Ruthenian parish). The key to success with any change is to generate the enthusiasm of the people, so that they say �Why can�t we have that here?�

There are several differences between working towards the fullness of the official Ruthenian recension Liturgy and the IELC Revised Liturgy. The Church has a memory of the fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy (at least all the traditional public texts). This memory is far from perfect, but most parishes still have people who remember the �Slavonic High Mass�. Yes, it was not a full Ruthenian recension but most of the public texts were prayed. I remember the �Slavonic High Mass� through my high school years. The memory of the litanies between the antiphons was kept by singing the �Lord, have mercy, Lord, have mercy, To You, O Lord, Amen� between the antiphons and after the Jedinorodjyj). The litanies after the Gospel skipped the ones for the catechumens and the faithful but the ones before the Creed and the Lord�s Prayer were prayed. It was eventually replaced with the �Slavonic Low Mass� (which, for some of readers, had no litanies, no troparia no epistle, Creed, and etc.). That was the standard Liturgy for 20 years. When the priest retired and a new pastor came he quickly ordered the Levkulic Pew Books. He gradually added back the missing elements and within two years the Liturgy as given in the Levkulic Pew Book was the standard. It�s quite true that the Levkulic Pew Book does not give the full text of the Liturgy but it was a huge restoration that was accomplished in just two years. Progress towards a much fuller Ruthenian Liturgy could easily continue in these parishes.

How does this restoration of a more traditional Liturgy differ from implementing the IELC Revised Liturgy? The rubrics of the IELC Revised Liturgy have no living memory in our Church. The vast majority of our people (and certainly all of our priests) have actually been to at least one Divine Liturgy that was at least as full as what is contained in the Levkulic text (be it at their parish for a special celebration, another parish for a special celebration or a parish that simply took a fuller Liturgy or even a Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox parish). Implementing the IELC Revised Liturgy means not restoring what is still in the common memory of the people (at least for the public parts) but implementing something vastly different.

And, yes, I neglect that the priestly rubrics that were vastly different that the official recension. I daresay the people are sometimes easier to work with than the priests!

And then you have the people like me, who have spent time studying and praying the Liturgy, the theology of the Eastern Church, and the texts of Vespers and Matins. We�ve traveled and experienced the Liturgy in a much greater fullness in many places. We don�t want a revision of the Liturgy. We want the fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy. We want the litanies. All of them. I have yet to run into a layman who wants the litanies gutted from the Liturgy!


Father David wrote:
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.�

It is easier to add to something people know than to change it. The revised edition of the Presanctified is still somewhat of an abbreviation, just one abbreviated to someone else�s taste (note well the missing litanies!). The way forward was to republish the Levkulic edition with some additions, additions that would be gradually be added over the years in actual celebration. In the first new addition one would perhaps add the proper stichera for Wednesdays and Fridays (rather than the combined �weekly� ones in the existing edition), a second prokimenon and a few other improvements. Then, seven or eight years later one would print a new edition containing all of the prokimeny. This allows the people to continue with the texts they have memorized after praying them for twenty plus years instead of changing them. I can applaud the desire to add more scripture for praying in the division of the entire kathisma psalms by assigning a portion of those psalms to be prayed on each day. Yet the result of dividing the psalms this way is a loss of stability. Instead of having a uniform first part of Presanctified that a parish might celebrate 12 or 14 times a year we have two different first parts of Presanctified that are each celebrated 6 times a year. Stability is vital in worship.

I won�t ask the reasoning why it�s so necessary to pray a variety of psalms at the Presanctified and also so necessary to limit parishes to only one psalm verse for each of the three antiphons at the Divine Liturgy. This discussion is already long enough!


Father David wrote:
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.

Father David might be correct in that he is a professional and that I am just a layman who knows nothing and can�t handle change. I�m sure he will forgive me for strongly disagreeing! I do really like change. I liked it when my home parish moved from the �Low Mass� to a fuller Divine Liturgy. And I really loved it when I moved to Virginia and found an even fuller Liturgy. And I�d love it even better if every litany was prayed by the deacon and the priest stopped using pre-cut! But even if Father David is correct that professionals can handle change and us unprofessional laymen cannot he should consider that the Church is full of unprofessional people just like me!

The issue here is not change. It�s about the type of change and the way it could be implemented. I have argued the case for change, change leading towards a much fuller celebration of the Ruthenian recension. Father David is arguing for change in a different direction. I respect his position but I disagree with it. I�m always open to being convinced that his way is better than that of the Ruthenian recension which we share with others but so far his argument for the change he has proposed does not rise above personal taste in Liturgy. He has given no substantial theological argument that changes he proposes would make us more Orthodox than change towards the fullness of the Ruthenian recension.

The accounts I offered do not in any way parallel an argument for keeping the Liturgy in Church Slavonic. The parallel there would be if the bishops had, say in 1935 or 1940, issued both revised rubrics and revised texts. That didn�t happen. What happened was they forbid the fullness of the Ruthenian recension, maybe at a time when such restoration could have begun slowly. Going from an old language to a new language is not the same thing as making changes to the old language. Also, I have never argued against change. I have argued that change must be: 1) good and 2) done slowly over time.


Father David wrote:
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.)

It�s not a matter of the Parma and Passaic versions being more Eastern. If that were the case I suspect that the people of my parish would flock to it. It�s long been known that the further away one gets from Pittsburgh the more Eastern one�s parish generally is (and not just because we are geographically further East than Pittsburgh is! ).

Father David might not be aware but the Levkulic Presanctified Liturgy had been a staple in my local parish from the first edition (late 1970s?), the one that contained only one set of stichera for the entire Fast. It was replaced with the fuller Levkulic version as soon as it became available. It was well established here in Virginia even before I moved here in 1983. And then the Liturgy here was far more complete that the current �Greek Catholic� version used in most places in Pittsburgh. Three verses of the antiphons dated almost to the beginning of the parish. More litanies than were in the Pew Book were taken from that time also. Things like the typical psalms and the Beatitudes and the full Holy Anointing service on Holy Wednesday (with the seven epistles, Gospels and prayers) were already old friends in 1984. The people here have embraced change willingly.

The real issue here is that the whole essence of the Presanctified Liturgy has changed with the removal of the litanies to break up the kathisma psalms (which give people a moment to digest them and catch a breath while praying �Lord, have mercy�); the moving of Ephrem�s prayer from it�s usual place between the �Let my prayer arise� and the Litany of Supplication to where it would be taken at the Ninth Hour (before the Presanctified) ; and the other changes. And, of course, all the textual changes. None of these changes were necessary. If a new edition had been prepared that built on the old edition instead of changing everything people would be flocking to it instead of running from it. It can still be done and I hope the bishops consider it. Stability in worship is important!

Thank you, Father David, for hearing what I have to say. Thanks even more for participating in these discussions here on the Forum. I will be on travel until at least Tuesday and may not have the opportunity to post again until then.

Admin

When I went to Uniontown I remember the ByzanTEEN's giving their recommendations to the Bishop to bring new people to Church.

The recommendations were: Restore the Liturgy to as close as possible to the Ruthenian recension. The other recommendations involved Radio and TV ads.

The point to this is even the ByzanTEEN's want the authenticate Liturgy.

Gee, I would have thought they wanted their Liturgy to be under an hour. Go Figure!

Dear Alex,
Well, I can certainly scotch one rumor with truth and honesty - Ss Volodymyr and Olha parish in Chicago is not "independent of the bishop". Bishop Jaroslav, Bishop Innocent and their successors have always been commemorated in the divine services and issue the requisite jurisdiction for the clergy to function at Saints Volodymyr and Ol'ha.

Incognitus

In the main, I should like to associate myself with the Administrator's remarks above.

As to the matter of who (or what) are the professionals - as someone once quipped, all professions are conspiracies against the laity! But it is becoming increasingly necessary, in so many areas of life, to consider what the laity in fact have to say. The Administrator certainly has a professional education, does not earn his living by digging ditches and has good powers of observation. Thus it is not ridiculous to suggest that his reflections might well be of some value.

Incognitus

You know, I'm not suprised at all. Once you experience the full Ruthenian Recension, it's difficult to have anything else. Many who have celebrated it know what we're going to lose. Once you drive a Mercedes, it's hard to go back to a Chevy.

JMHO,
Cathy

And once one has eaten filet mignon, one looses one's taste for Burger King!

Incognitus