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

Admin,

"Simple logic demands that an argument calling for the taking of traditionally quiet priestly prayers aloud (the need for people to hear) be paralleled with an argument for removing the icon screen and having the priest face the people (the need for people to see)."

I find this arguement specious and illogical. There is nothing to see, on the otherhand there is something to hear. To take the prayers aloud is the most ancient practice and has both a didactic and evangelic element whether or not they were originally intended too. And as referenced above was something that many Russian bishops themselves, St. Tikhon included, were in favor of.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I respectfully disagree. If there is nothing to see why bother hiding it behind a screen?

But, as I stated earlier, the discussion is about far more than mandates to take prayers aloud. No other Byzantine Church - Catholic or Orthodox - is contemplating similar mandates. That alone should be enough for the bishops to reject these revisions.

Admin,

I was always taught that the screen was not there to hide anything but to remind us that Heaven- the Altar is joined to Earth-the Nave by Christ, the Theotokos and the Saints on the Icon screen.

The right thing is the right thing even if noone else is doing it. That the Russian Church has failed to act on the recommendations of their saintly martyr bishops for almost 100 years is sad and I do not want to follow suit.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Friends,

I'm just happy you two aren't arguing about something even MORE important!

Alex

Father Deacon Lance,

One element of the quiet prayers is that the prayers of the priest are primarily prayers to God, and not primarily tools of catechesis. That which is occurring in the altar is beyond our comprehension. The liturgical theology supporting the use of an icon screen cannot be divorced from that supporting the quiet prayers of a priest.

No one has yet successfully argued that the proposed revisions are right. Heck, no one has yet successfully argued that the proposed revisions are acceptable. All of the arguments by the revisionists have been nothing more than arguments for personal preferences in liturgy, that their opinions regarding Liturgy ought to carry more weight than the received customs across the Byzantine Church. Further, no one has even begun to address the idea that these revisions are absolutely necessary in our Church (especially given the great consternation they have generated in recent years).

Did it ever occur to you that the Orthodox Church might not have acted upon these saintly martyred bishops� recommendations because they did not think they were right? Or pastorally advisable? Why is closely paralleling possible development of Liturgy with the Orthodox (as directed by Rome) dismissed so utterly by the Revisionists? There is not a single Byzantine Orthodox jurisdiction (or other Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction) that is contemplating similar mandates. That alone should be enough to cause the bishops to reject this proposed revision of the Liturgy.

Admin

Thanks for this clarification. My recollection is probably from the post-concilliar, pre-NO mass in which, as I mentioned earlier, the commemorations in the Roman Canon were taken aloud.

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9

Dear Administrator,

Your point with respect to the Orthodox Liturgy is cogent.

However, may I raise something?

Yes?

When have either of our two Churches ever lost sleep over whether our liturgical practice was in line with that of our Orthodox Mother Churches?

Have I been too involved with the Carmelite Forum and missed something here?

Alex
ICCBF

You are quite correct that most Byzantine / Greek Catholics have not cared about whether our practice parallel that of our Orthodox Mother Churches (either those of the same recension or at the higher level). Indeed, much effort in the past has been given to showing us to be different.

I believe that we ought to take seriously not just the official liturgical books for the Ruthenian recension, but also to parallel any liturgical development with that in the larger Byzantine Orthodox Church. These reforms � which no Orthodox Church is contemplating � will be the official break that creates the Third Way. That should be avoided and I hope the bishops have the courage to reject the revisions.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I certainly agree with you.

But are you then asking for too much? (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

How can this principle that you are advancing (i.e. parallel with the Mother Orthodox Churches) be framed in such a way as to not cause EC feathers to ruffle - where they would indeed be ruffled?

Our celebration of All Saints of Rus'-Ukraine, which our Mother Orthodox Church observes on the Second Sunday after Pentecost, is, on the UGCC calendar, celebrated on the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost.

And why? This is because the feast of Corpus Christi et al. cannot be moved etc.

If the Ruthenian Church is as advanced in this regard as all that, more power to you!

Alex

I challenge you to prove your assertion that Photius's perception is correct.

In all of the years that I have read this forum, no one has every suggested that there no such thing as a Latinization, or perhaps a Latinization impulse. But there is no less certainly an impulse to use Latinization idea an epithet, whether it is relevant or not, or worse, simply to assume that it must be not only relevant but the decisive explanation - so obviously so, that no explanation or qualification is required. This is a reduction of a church and its people to a caricature, and is highly objectionable to say the very least.

Did Korolevsky document the thinking of our liturgical commission about the new liturgy? Is there any immediate relevance of the cited work to the particular claim made on this thread?

Ah "something or other". That's progress.

No such attempt, whatsoever, was made.

That point was not disputed. And, as I pointed out to Tony, is irrelevant to my point. If one wishes to denigrate the work of our commission, dissing it as a Latinization, then please, specifically support the claim, or understand that you are providing a nice example of the sin of rash judgment. To vitiate the possible, implcit argument that this rationale is obvious and that there is no other possible rationale, I present the fact that these so-called Latinizations occur in parts of the contemporary Orthodox communion where such a rationale seems most implausible.

Admin,

"Did it ever occur to you that the Orthodox Church might not have acted upon these saintly martyred bishops� recommendations because they did not think they were right?"

The Russian Church did not act upon thme becasue no sooner had they concluded their synod the Communist took over. Did it ever occur to you that the saintly martyred bishops were the ones calling for change and those who collaborated with the Communists were the ones who refused to act upon them? Did it occur to you that one of the weaknesses of the Eastern Church has been its tendency to dogmatize ritual, rubric, and custom becoming liturgically immobile, worshipping the forms instead of the substance then calling it Tradition?

"Or pastorally advisable?"

The Russian bishop's only reasoning was to be pastoral. They saw a laity that worshipped forms and customs, whose fervor was suffering from overlong services conducted according to a monastically derived typicon, who did not comprehend the services very well because they were disconnected from the priest by his silent prayers and their prayers taken away by choirs.

"Why is closely paralleling possible development of Liturgy with the Orthodox (as directed by Rome) dismissed so utterly by the Revisionists?"

Why is not slavishly following every development of the Orthodox dismissed by the Rubricists?

The funny thing is there is no unity to the opposition to the revised Liturgy. One group rejects because it is not like the Orthodox, another rejects because is too much like the Orthodox and not like the Lviv 1905 order. The only common denominator I see among them is: "It is not the way I want it so I reject it."

The bishops have made their decision. May we all stop arguing about that which we cannot change and humbly, prayerfully, and obediantly submit ourselves to our hierarchs.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear djs,

You certainly raise a very important issue with respect to "Latinization!"

It is a term that can be applied by almost anyone to almost anything, all the while defying exact definition.

And what is also almost certain is that when someone is accused of Latinization, there is almost nothing one can do to acquit oneself of the charge . . .

Over the years, I've come to understand these characteristics of "Latinization:"

1) It is the ultimate fate of most Eastern Catholics, if it isn't already a reality with them now;

2) It is an understandable characteristic of the "Kyivan Baroque" period of Orthodoxy and still persists here and there among certain Orthodox theologians who should know better by now;

3) It is a conditioning factor of much ecumenical thought among the Orthodox today - or so say the traditionalists;

4) Only "Latinizers" entertain the idea of unity with Rome;

5) When left to private practices of Orthodox Christians, it can be tolerated, especially among converts from the West and from the EC's;

6) If you don't agree with me about this or that (and this applies to EC's as well) then chances are your perspective is . . . Latinized!

Alex

Alex,

Thanks for your post.

Am I asking too much? I don�t think so. Our official liturgical books are still almost identical. All we need to do is to spend the next few generations celebrating the Liturgy according to the official books. Even if I supported some of the revisions I would oppose they way the revisions are being introduced. Here in the Eparchy of Passaic we had a excellent example given to us by Bishop Michael Dudick. When Bishop Michael became bishop the liturgical life in many of our parishes was pretty �low�. Yet when he retired the liturgical life in the eparchy was noticeably closer to that given in the official books. He accomplished this by celebrating a fuller Liturgy wherever he went until the clergy began to imitate his example. There were no great mandates and no mass exodus from the Church of Passaic. Yet when he retired the change was noticeable and good.

The Ruthenian Church has not had a great dedication to the feast of Corpus Christi (I don�t ever remember it being celebrated although I have seen texts for it). A way forward for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church would probably to find a way to move the celebration of �All Saints of Rus�-Ukraine� to the Second Sunday after Pentecost and to celebrate both. Then, after a generation or two, to do away with the Corpus Christi celebration altogether.

Admin

Bless me an inquirer, Father Deacon Lance!

"Rubricists?" And you are a, what was it, "Revisionist?"

If the Ruthenians are preparing for a confessional battle, I think you should get labels for yourselves that are a bit more easy to pronounce!

Does it not sound like you wonderful Ruthenians are setting yourselves up for an unnecessary ecclesial unpleasantry, beginning with such labels?

Personally, I prefer to call myself a "Papalist Ritualist Internet Eastern Teacher" or PRIEST for short . . .

Do you and the Administrator still like each other?

I'm sure you do, but are you going to have special label buttons made?

Then there are the terms like "creeping Rubricism" and "Renovationistic Revisionists."

Then we might see articles in the Catholic or Orthodox press about "BC Rubricists seeking closer communion with Ohio Revisionists - the latter agree to the priestly prayers said in a barely audible voice."

Fascinating stuff!

This Forum has seen the formation of an Internet Carmel, has pronounced on issues of Church unity (and I know for a fact that at least one Vatican official has used texts from here for a papal speech delivered in Toronto during World Youth Day) and has seen several theological sparring matches.

Now we're getting into an "Old Believer/Nikonian" situation here!

I just LOVE IT!!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

I agree with you and am only wondering if this makes me a "Rubricist?"

If so, do I need to join the Ruthenian Church or can I just remain in the UGCC (which latter Church seems rather boring by comparison!)

I just may have "crossed the Rubricon" already . . .

Please let know if there are lapel pins or sashes I can get to openly demonstrate my Rubricist commitment! (O.K., I'm kidding with that one!)

Alex Roman the Rubricist
ICCBF