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

These changes really scare me! For one thing I do not believe in "horizontal" language. In the Bible it says MANKIND for a reason. Remember Genesis? Eve came from the rib of Adam least anyone forget! Thus, the word womMAN. To call all huMANs MANKIND is accurate because it refers back to Genesis.

If you don't believe in the first Chapter of the Book what good is the rest?

I honestly believe the Catholic Church could be spreading heresy by propragating this error. The Bible seems very clear to me:
Revelation 22:19 �And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.�

I am not a scholar but I like to think I have some common sense and this translation just doesn't seem logical to me.

Please would anyone tell me why I am wrong I would love to here it. If the translation does promote this kind of translation it would really get me thinking about Orthodoxy.

Can anyone answer my question of who is mandating these changes, Rome or the Ruthenian Metropolitan??

Ungcsertezs

djs,

I ask to see what your list will contain. Since some of what you mention was already in place in pre-emigration Rusinia, I don't think it had much to do with appearing more American.

Just to cite some examples. Some GC churches in Europe had stained glass, pews with kneelers, etc.

The use of the sanctuary curtain seems stronger in all of the Orthodox jurisdictions than among the GCs, although it is less strong in some places even in the homelands. Organs have indeed entered in parallel places, among the Antiochians and Melkites for example, but none other that I can think of. Well in the GOA but they don't have an American counterpart.

ISTM that Assumption for Dormition is an old Anglicism (maybe Anglicanism), easier to deal with.

I am curious what you mean by "Americanized forms of address for clergy."

.

Dear Ray, I hope you don't mind this true story:

A governor of Texas, many years ago was being asked about Spanish language instruction in the various towns of Texas in which the population remained entirely Mexican.

The governor was oppposed, and said:
If the English languiage was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it's good enough for all of the schoolchildren of Texas.

djs,

I have met Ruthenian GCs who have thought the DL was in Slovak. A friend who is a pastor in a Ruthenian parish says some of his older parishioners say the DL used to be in Greek (well, they are Greek Catholics, it makes sense). We have had GCs on this board who would say Rusyn is Ukrainian.

I guess even "we" have little knowledge about ourselves.

T

Tony, You seem to want to make something out of "parallel" that really isn't in the word, then dispute it. By parallel, I, at least, do not mean done in concert, synchronoulsy, or even contemporaneously, or to the same degree. Just that many very similar things - along the same path - have occurred. And therefore it is not only simplistic, but discernibly false to see Rome, by its command or by our obseqiuousnes. as the sole cause of these occurences.

Our ancestors of course lived in the "West: in a predominantly RC culture; we even at times swapped churches with RC's. Some western elements would have slipped in earlier with us - especially with the brake of anti-Westernism undone. Many Orthodox when they did move West and were similarly immersed, changed in parallel ways.

UC:
Who among us would know? But if you find someone who does, ask them what, exactly the mandate entails - i.e., is it the Metropolitan's prescription or what will be done from the book, or is it the Metropolitan's declaration of what is the book?

True. I will admit to having learned a great deal of what little I know right here. I think it's fair to say that opinions that are detracting and even calumnious should, if given at all, at least be knowledgable.

Dear Ray:

I meant to add that making translating anthropos/adelphos into proper English is a matter of some scholarly discussion. I think the HTC essay, I've linked ot a couple of times, did a nice job in distinguishing good translation versus bad theology. I don't see our church as a hotbed of avant garde theology, and can scarcely imagine such agendas entering into the work of our committee. I just don't see alot to worry about on this point. Sorry if I was too glib.

djs,

I don't want to come across harsh! I am genuinely confused and looking for answers.

djs,

I think you and I communicate in different ways. I am reading your post for what is says, you seem to be reading more into my post than what I have written. I looked up parallel on www.m-w.com [m-w.com] just to be sure, give it a look see.

I do not think that the various changes that have taken place in the various churches can simply, merely, be lumped together as having been caused by one force or even the same forces. I think there is more than one force at work here. In undergrad Psych we learned that correlation does not equal causation, I think that can apply similarly here.

You seem to be having an argument with me that I have not started. You say "therefore it is not only simplistic, but discernibly false to see Rome, by its command or by our obseqiuousnes. as the sole cause of these occurences." Fine. I agree. I have not mentioned Rome in this thread at all. Therefore, you don't have to bring it up as if defending some position. I have not even talked about the cause of these changes, merely that some of them were in place in Europe before the emigrations.

Look for the one blaming Rome and have that fight with him/her, not with me please.

T

Went to your MWD; the relevant entry:
"3 a : similar, analogous, or interdependent in tendency or development b : readily compared"
Please note the "or" with "interdependent".

You entered into a thread pickling up on a subtopic that was precisely on this point. It appeared that you were challenging something; now it is clearer that you were not challenging the point that I was making but something else...

Yes of course to the pluraiity of forces that mix in a complex way. But it is suffcient for the point of the thread that there more forces than allowed by Photius.

The causation/correlation point, btw, I think would be better phrased thus: Effect does not necessarily imply cause, that is, even if two similar churches undergo similar developments, the underlying causes need not be the same at all. This point is fair and interesting, albeit tangential.

In the context of the thread it just muddies the waters. The point was: 1) there must be more forces that could lead to the effects considered by Photius than those described by him. Why? Because those forces were certainly not at work in the case of EO churches which nevertheless underwent parallel / similar / analogous / equivalent developments. 2) there was no foundation for the particular selection of forces made by Photius; 3) Thus his comment was unjustified: it was not justified explicitly, nor is it justified implicitly by virtue of the selected forces being the only possible ones.

ps congratulations on earning your MDiv.

I was referring to this post:

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003182;p=2#000023

I'm still looking for details of this "Bishop Pataki liturgy" another poster described as being "the problem with Passaic". I have been serving as cantor in Passaic since 1999, and have seen the following differences from the Liturgy as served in Pittsburgh (changes noted on a single sheet on the cantor stand, with a softbound copy of the complete text as well):

1. We do not take the verses marked as optional in the regular Divine Liturgy book.

2. We are encouraged to take the Typical Psalms, and provided with a slightly different text.

3. The third antiphon is always taken.

4. "Peace be to all. R. And with your spirit" is added back to the introduction to the Gospel from the official Sluzhebnik.

5. The filioque is omitted from the Creed.

6. The response "It is proper and just to worship the Father...." is shortened to "It is proper and just." (which matches the Russian Old Rite).

7. The anaphora is chanted aloud.

8. The dismissal petitions from Vespers (with the response "Grant it, O Lord") are omitted from the preparation for Communion

If there are any other textual changes, they are minor enough that the cantors and people can continue to use the 1978 Liturgy book without changes. If I missed any changes in the order of the Divine Liturgy, please mention them; we do take all the litanies in the 1978 service book, including the optional ones.

Honestly, it seems strange to me that anyone is positing massive defections based on the above, unless either the anaphora being heard is offensive, or the idea of any change at all is unacceptable.

The new text of the Divine Liturgy used at the seminary last year does NOT include all of these changes; the dismissal petitions are included (marked "may be intoned"), and the text also included the Beatitudes, which were omitted in the past, as well as the Litany for the Catechumens ("If catechumens are present...")

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

The Divine Liturgy of Bishop Pataki includes the following changes:

1. The prayer of the First Antiphon concluding the Litany of Peace MUST be recited aloud.

2. More than one verse of the antiphons is PROHIBITED.

3. The �little litanies� between the antiphons are PROHIBITED.

4. The Beatitudes are effectively PROHIBITED because they are not specifically permitted in the official directives.

5. The priestly prayers before most of the doxologies MUST BE PRAYED ALOUD.

6. The traditional introduction (�Wisdom!� and �Let us be attentive!� to the epistle is PROHIBITED).

7. The litany after the Great Entrance is PROHIBITED and the prayer of the litany MUST be prayed aloud.

8. The introduction to the Creed �The doors, the doors�.� is replaced with �In wisdom let us profess our faith.�

9. It is PROHIBITED to sing the full �It is proper and just to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity one in substance and undivided� according to the official books published by Rome.

10. It is PROHIBITED to pray the anaphora quietly as directed by the official books published by Rome and as done by the Orthodox.

11. The first several petitions of the litany before the Lord�s Prayer are combined together into the format of a prayer by the priest. The �Grant it O Lord� petitions are PROHIBITED. These do come to us from Vespers and have been an integral part of the preparation for Holy Communion for a thousand years.

12. The priestly prayer before the Lord�s Prayer MUST be prayed aloud.

13. The litany after communion is PROHIBITED. It is reduced to the introduction petition and the prayer MUST be prayed aloud.

All of these changes are OFFENSIVE and UNACCEPTABLE.

The new text of the Divine Liturgy includes many of these changes. Worse yet, it includes some INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE, which should be condemned outright.