www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology New Byzantine Catholic, concerned about Revisions of the Divine Liturgy

As an outsider to the Byzantine catholic church, I've generally been abstaining from this discussion, but I'll now break with that briefly and offer a few comments:

Looking over some BCC translations, I see that they are so inaccurate as to not mean the same thing as the original; this appears true of both old and new translations.

As for the "priesthood of all believers,", I'd point to the need for making audible the priestly prayers, which, in the Byzantine understanding, the priest speaks to God directly.

I'm so unfamiliar with the Roman Rite as to be unable to comment ...

My understanding is that with Vatican II, the Eucharistic Prayer began being said out loud; this is precisely one of the innovations about the Revision that is being criticized here.

As an Orthodox, I perceive these Latinizations as proof that Rome incapable and unwilling to let Eastern Rite Catholics retain their Rite intact; or, at least, any Eastern Rite under Rome feels some need, some compulsion, to bastardize its Rite.

Well, this isn't their Rite, and what right do they have interfering with some tradition alien to them? Just because they don't like their own Rite doesn't give them any right to contort some other Rite to their liking!

From everything I'm reading, the Revision is nearly entirely about such an agenda.

Methinks that "inclusive language" is only a part of the English translation used in the Roman Rite; the Latin version does not suffer from this.

Photius

This is true.

Dear Photius:

The whole point is to get it right. So I hope you will take the time to be specific here, and also to compare the translations of other jurisdictions. Otherwise it's just a gratuitous swipe.

It was also mentioned by Kapusta on another thread that this practice is reminiscent of the Latins. First, IIRC, this did not begin with Vatican II; I certainly remember hearing parts of the prayers that include an anamnesis (just because the remembrance of Linus - a name otherwise only heard in Peanuts - stuck in this young boys brain.) Second, if this practice is, as you would have it, alien to Eastern mentality, then the silent anaphora would never have been considered an abuse, in need of reform, and would not have been already re-introduced within churches in the Orthodox communion. Third, as to similarity to the Latins, if one actually listens to the words one cannot help but being struck by the difference between the Eastern and Western prayers; hearing the words makes the distinction more vivid, not less.

As a BC I perceive this comment as without foundation and without cogency. Notably the two scenarios are very distinct - having in common only a cheap shot against some Catholic or another. Surely, if you had some actual insight here you might be able to narrow things down just a little a bit. Is it Rome? Is it universal among Eastern Catholics? What Latinizations are "these" that Doc was talking about? In "these" cases are we talking bastardization or just organic development among people unfettered by Romophobia?

Does this remark have any foundation? Do you know anyone involved in the revision, and anything about a hidden progressive agenda"? Or are you just engaging in sterotype (If it's "brothers and sisters" insted of "brethren" then they must want to advocate birth control, remarriage after divorce, and a married clergy; oh wait not that "progressive" agenda but ... ) I am glad that Orthodox Priest Vladimir has spoken on this point with a very different perspective and that is very similar to the tract from the Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral website.

I'm specifically addressing the concerns of those who, like myself, have come into the Byzantine Catholic rite after fleeing the nonsense in the post-conciliar Roman church and its Novus ordo "latin" rite.

I'm looking for proof of that. I have not found it yet. There are "conspiracy theories" that this might be the case, but little actual proof.

I'm currently reading Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History.

He is very unsympathetic towards a certain mindset of what he considers to be schismatic elements of the East. If your post is typical of their mindset, I understand why.

Ah, Praise God! I've found a kindred spirit on The Byzantine Forum!!!

Christ is Risen!

Unfortunately, a
I have only a few minutes to reply to you long post ... please forgive the spotty reply!

I'll try to be specific some time in the near future; a couple examples from memory are: The Trisagion as "Holy is God! Holy and Mighty! Holy and Imortal One have mercy on us!" and "For each and for all" rendered as "And remember all your people."
If so, I stand corrected and I apologize for my ignorance and faulty analogy.

A handful of priests doing something that the Orthodox Church as a whole looks askance upon (or worse) does not constitue, IMHO, being "re-introduced within ... the Orthodox". A sminority of OCA priests do this, but I can not find any other occurance of this anywhere, and the OCA is a fraction of a percent of the Orthodox Church. Asking around the world, the answers I get are anything from "there's no such custom" to opinions that are very, very negative.

I'll be in Russia this summer, and will ask opinions from priests there, for additional opinion.

The similarity applies only to saying the Anaphora out loud. The Roman Canon is not unknown in the Orthodox Church; when used (which I've never seen), it is said silently, with Byzantine Rite style ekphonia and responces.

I should have used the word "hybridization" because, even though it means the same thing as "bastardization", it lacks the negative connotation.

Perhaps some is due to being "unfettered by Romophobia, but that accounts for, at most, little of it, IMHO; my perception is a mixture of wanting to imitate Rome and (especially in the New World) wanting to appear "more Catholic", caising, for example, chirches with no iconostatis (and almost never a curtain) and daily Liturgy, even during Great Lent.

I do not make such a link or hold true such a stereotype.

Photius

Dear Photius:

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my remarks. I look forward to your longer reply.

I don't ever recall the Trisagion translation that you give; the second example follows the GOA , differeing only by the re-itereation of "remember". I can understand a discussion of these translation, but the idea that they change the meaning is a bit much.

The practice of taking the anaphora aloud does exist with Orthodoxy. It has not been taken, AFAIK, as grounds for breaking communion. I presume we can agree that those who do it, are not trying to imitate Rome (pre- or post-conciliar) or to appear more "Catholic". Similarly, no curtains, de minimis iconostases - not to mention pews, kneeling on Sunday, ... (even organs but we don't go that far) - these things that you might like to ascribe to imitation of Rome or trying to appear more Catholic - they exist in Orthodoxy. I don't know what informs your perceptions, but if you think about the parallels you might have a chance to improve them.

Photius,

I think that what is being missed here is blame for the continued existence of latinizations, at this point in time, is not easily laid at Rome's doorstep - as she has directed our Churches to return to their roots. That latinizations came about, initially, is an effect attributable to many causes - both internal to our Churches and external to them and you have hit on some of them.

Particularly in the New World, there was sometimes a desire to be "more Catholic" or, at least, "as Catholic", sometimes to be "more American" or, at least, "less foreign". Those things we did to ourselves; in other places, conformance was foisted on us by narrow-minded Latin hierarchs, at a time when our Churches had no hierarchs of their own here or when those we did have operated under restrictive covenants.

Thus, we saw communion rails, kneelers, organs, stations of the cross, confessionals, statuary, rosaries, delaying the age of reception of the Mysteries of Communion and Chrismation, and other Latin praxis introduced into the physical and spiritual life of our temples and icons, iconostases, and other of our traditions abandoned. And, yes, latinizations were sometimes allowed to be entered into our Liturgies themselves and liturgical celebrations unknown to our heritage (e,g., Benediction) were introduced as well.

That was all in another time, but it was also a time in which probably at least two generations of our peoples were raised and a time in which Latins entered into our Churches, saw these familiar things, and understood them, wrongly, to be part and parcel of us (as, in fact, did some of our own - never having known anything different). I think those are the "Latins" ("former Latins" might have better described them) of whom Doc was speaking - but I could be wrong, he could be speaking of disaffected Latins who have run from the Novus Ordo, rather than to us. They're folks that really perceive us as an antidote to what they see as litugically abusive in their own Church - and that isn't what we are - one should have a decided commitment to and understanding of Eastern Christianity before seeing us (EC or EO) as their preferred spiritual home. It isn't - it can't be - it should never be - all about the "smells and bells".

Now, in anywhere from the first to fourth decade of renewal, as return to our rightful tradition and praxis continues (the progression across Churches has been very uneven, with some moving at a much faster pace than others), it can still strike those unfamiliar with what is truly our tradition as an unsettling time and process. We need badly to fully catechize our faithful and to speed up and bring closure to the period of undoing what has been done to us. what we've allowed to be done to us, and what we've done to ourselves.

One cannot generalize to "any Eastern Rite under Rome". There are Eastern Catholic Churches that have made enormous strides in all these areas that I've mentioned - I like to believe that mine is one; others still struggle. But, don't paint with such a broad brush - finer, more precise strokes produce a more accurate picture.

Many years,

Neil

What an idea! Perhaps this feeling may have been common to many EC's and EO's/ Perhaps this may explain the many parallel "hyridizations".

It's a good thing, I suppose, that this all seems so distant now, that people seem not to understand anymore just how powerful this feeling was, especially among first generation Americans.

Photius,

you really need to "lighten up" with your comments. I do not know what English language edition of the dictionary to which you subscribe, but a hybrid is quite different than a bastard. Your posts do reflect a lack of basic civility. Further, your posts reflect an arrogance than knows no limits. I'm not sure what you were to prove by posting that you were seminary-trained and turned down the priesthood a number of times. You have accused the Pope of Rome of "God-hating" and a Bishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of heresy.

Now you have ventured to speculate and question the translation of the Divine Liturgy of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. I do not know your scholarship in the area of translation, but it really does not matter, since given your profile you list your occupation as an engineer and not as a translator. So with regard to translations, I will trust the translators of our Church and the pastoral leadership of our Hierarchs.

The only response I expect from you is to show at least a bit more civility, if not Christian charity, when you post on this forum.

Hiii

Byzantine Catholic Churches have been enough strong to ressist several years without significant liturgical changes, in spite of "renewal" spirit that has beaten the western world since the 1960's.

Let's not forget that some Orthodox Churches (specialy in the USA) were the ones who started translating the liturgy into American English.

Latinization isn't good at all but at least it's still Christian (The Armenian Orthodox haven't got less Christian for having adopted the organ, the Roman mitre, the last Gospel, etc). The true danger exists when reforms are adopted for worldly purposes (that the faithful "understand better", "participate more", "adapt to the modern times", "make it less boring for the young", etc).

However, those Eastern Churches that have adopted more Latinization, are more vulnerable to modernism than those who are fully Eastern.

It's known that in India for example, the Syro-Malabar Church has been destroying its liturgical tradition following the renewal of the Roman Church and it hasn't been Rome's fault:
[Linked Image]

The Syro-Malabar hierarchy and priests have opposed in strong terms suggestions from Rome to make the liturgy more Eastern and according to the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition. The Maronites have also made their own reforms so that their liturgy looks more and more like a modern Roman service, the Romanian-Byzantines also.

I doubt this is praised by Rome. Popes (and I recognize this) have pushed for the preservation of Eastern identity. Otherwise, the existence of the Eastern Churches within the Catholic communion would have no sense.

Priests of the Ruthenian Metropolia in America have just concluded their meeting with Metropolitan Basil. They have been told that these "revisions" are being mandated by Rome. Others have stated that Rome has only approved this revised liturgy and rubrics for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia, and it is the Metropolitan himself who actually mandates these changes.

Which scenario is correct? Isn't it more correct to say Rome gives the numerous "sui juris" Eastern Catholic Churches the autonomy to make their own particular liturgical changes? It is up to the heads of the different "sui juris" churches. So it should be stated that these changes are being made by the Ruthenian Metropolia, and Rome has approved them, providing that they are not heretical. So in reality, Rome is not mandating these specific rubrics and the new translation. It is just allowing the Ruthenian Metropolia in America the "autonomy" to make such changes. Is this not how "sui juris" churches govern themselves? I'm just looking for clarification on this matter.

Ungcsertezs

Dear djs,

I take it that by paralell you mean in the ECs and EOs. Is that correct? Which paralell "hybridization" in particular are you talking about?

Tony

So is the mandating coming from Rome or the Ruthenian Metropolitan?

Ungcsertesz

I am not talking about anything in particular. The point is just that the motivations perceived by Photius seem to assume the worst, with little apparent knowledge of us (Rusyn is Slovak :rolleyes: ) - while a moment of serious consideration of timelines and trends, as well as parallels in Orthodoxy, would lead to much clearer perception.

But some examples: pews, kneelers, kneeling, disuse of curtains, minimal iconostases, stained glass, organs, choir (loft) in back, clean shaven clergy, Americancized dress for clergy, Americanized forms of address for clergy, Assumption for Dormition and so forth.