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

Alex,

I would prefer not use labels but if others insit on them I will oblige. I consider myself a Byzantine Catholic Deacon nothing more or less. The Admin is my friend and I have both love and respect for him. However, I disagree with his position or using this forum to form or encourage criticism of our hierarchs or disobedience to their promulgations.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Thanks for your post.

You might be correct in everything you stated about why the Russian Church did not implement these reforms. Only when they someday do implement such reforms will it be appropriate for us to implement similar reforms. And then only if all of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension implement them also.

Regarding a possible tendency of Eastern Christians to become liturgically dogmatic, I suggest to you it the Revisionists who are far more dogmatic. I have never once argued that priests be forbidden to celebrate the Revised Liturgy. I have only argued against the mandates prohibiting the clergy from celebrating the traditional Liturgy according to the official books. I submit for your consideration that it is the Revisionists who are being intolerable.

You are correct that there is no unity among those opposed to the Revised Liturgy. This underscores even more the need not to change the standard. Some of the Revisionists use the need for unity in celebration as a justification for revising the Liturgy. If the clergy did not embrace the traditional Liturgy why does anyone believe that they will embrace a Revised Liturgy that they also do not believe in? All this revision will do is to create yet another style of liturgical celebration. That is hardly pastoral or good for the Church.

You stated that the bishops have spoken? Have they really? It seems to me that until the bishops make an official pronouncement to the people and the Revisionist Liturgy is actually being celebrated in our parishes there is hope. Even then each individual has the right to petition his bishop to restore the traditional Liturgy.

Sadly, I suspect we will loose many people because of these revisions. I receive a handful of complaints each week at the website Q&A from Ruthenians complaining about the changes here in the Passaic Eparchy. During Bright Week there was a huge spike complaining about the Revised Holy Week Services and how they will never go again. I know that they will be condemned as disloyal for complaining and leaving. It is very difficult for me to respond with an encouraging word.

Admin

Father Deacon Lance,

I have certainly criticized the positions of those who seek to revise the Liturgy. I have issued no personal criticisms towards said individuals. In fact, I have routinely spoken of their great love for Christ and the Church and their desire to do what is right. It is their position that I disagree with.

Also, I have not encouraged a single individual to join his or her voice to mine. Neither have I even once encouraged anyone else to oppose official promulgations or be disobedient. Until the bishops make a public statement and publicly publish the new texts and rubrics with the appropriate approval letters from Rome the matter is not settled. If and when such a promulgation is officially made to the people I, like the other members of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, will make my decision either to accept these revisions, wait for the next set of bishops to reconsider, or to leave and worship elsewhere. Until then it is completely appropriate for these discussions to continue.

Admin

It seems to me that there is and always will be hope. How could one suggest otherwise?
Sadly. But then please send them to read what Father Thomas is writing: about complacency and its nasty, almost lethal, effect on us; about the liturgical changes from the perspective of an Eastern priest, and of his positive, affirmative vision for our church.

Energy breeds energy.

Dear Father Deacon Lance (the Revisionist ),

I guess I really HAVE been very engrossed with our Internet Carmel Community!

I find that "disobedience" like "Latinization" can be a kind of "blanket" term that is often undefined and, as such, used when a situation presents itself where we can poke our fingers into our opponent's ribs . . .

In the UGCC, there are as many revisions of rubrics as there are parishes.

That this issue would arise among the Ruthenians points, I believe, to a strong liturgical piety as well as interest in your Church. For this you are all to be commended, certainly!

For me, disobedience has lost it sting over the years.

When it comes to certain bones we UGC-ers pick with Rome, the Patriarchate etc., then "disobedience" becomes a way of life and that term is largely robbed of any meaning.

I think your discussion with the Administrator, even when both of you represent what appear to be entrenched positions, points to a healthy, vibrant liturgical life in your Church.

You should continue with it, I believe, and leave the issue of obedience aside.

That, to me, Reverend Father Deacon, indicates a certain unwillingness to continue with the debate.

And since WHEN are Revisionists of any kind "obedient?"

I know the Administrator is a bit of a slippery opponent in a pitched debate.

But, as you know, I think I've proven that he can be beaten, at least on occasion.

So don't give up just yet!

Alex

Dear djs,

And you, Sir, are always willing to engage in open, non-judgemental debate, as always, I see!

Is that kind of "sniping" part of your reading of the rubrics too?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Huh? I always use my judgment in any discussion or debate. Sniping? I don't think so, but would be happy to retract and apologize for anything taken that way. Please advise.

Djs quotes me as having written the following:

Reader Photius raises a telling point: "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".

Unfortunately, Photius is quite correct (and to those who regard "bastardize" as an offensive term, I respond that "hybridize" in this context is far too weak). There are two useful books on the subject: Cyril Korolevsky's *Uniatism*, and Jacob Vellian (editor) *The Romanization Impulse*.

and then accuses me of the sin of rash judgement. Thank you so much for that.

There is a simple test that almost anyone can apply: the longer a group is in communion with Rome, the further Latinization progresses. Do you know of any exceptions?

I again recommend those two books - I think that they are highly relevant. If, without reading them, you have reached the opposite opinion, then just who is guilty of rash judgement?

Incognitus

Actually incognitus, I said a few other things in between the selected quotes. And tried to delineate the issue better. Another attempt.

If in the absence of clear evidence a denigrating motive is selected - whether it is the amorphous Latinization epithet, or for that matter the ignorant-bigot epithet - and attached to what we are doing now - that is rash judgment. Stated here, as before, as a conditional, not an accusation - since I can't fully know the motivation - and originally with a clear invitation to qualify the remark - so that I could know it better. Thanks for the selective quoting.


A bibliography is not evidence, nor is any argument to book's authority - especially if one needs to extrapolate from them to the present case. They no doubt make interesting reading. Some day I will read a book that explains why we invaded Iraq.

StuartK liked this question. Notable exceptions: Melkites of 1950 vs. Melkites of today. And similarly BC's of 1950 and BC's of today. Not quite responsive to what you asked, but very relevant. Can it be asserted that nothing has changed since the departure of Bishop Elko; that we are, with the passage of time, even further Latinized? I don't think so.

Dear djs,

Please advise, you say?

O.K., you can start with Incognitus and then the Administrator . . .

How is StuartK these days?

Alex

What would you like for me to start?

I don't know StuartK but always enjoyed his posts.

Dear djs,

Wherever you like!

Alex

Dear Administrator:

Alex has suggesting that my post to you was a snipe. That was not my intention at all. So I will rephrase.

You have frequently posted with eloquence on this forum on the transcendent importance of the centrality of Christ in our lives, and on the imporatnce of radiating that transforming reality. You have posted very directly on this point, for example, in discussions of the ethnic make-up of our churches.

I think that the discussion of the liturgical changes have evolved from discussion and analysis to a very heated point. I am fearful, from posts of many posters, that the core is being obfuscated in arguments over more peripheral elements. I thought it would be a good thing to respond to your post, with a parabolic attempt to jog all our minds to have this discussion tempered by overt recogniton of what I have no doubt at all that we all agree is central: where our genuine hope lies - notwithstanding what we may hope our hierarchs will do; and where we can take real encouragement from the rightly-focused efforts of our fine priests, like Fr. Thomas.

Dear Administrator,

I would like to recommend djs' post above for some sort of Forum award for:

a) direct simplicity

b) lucid flow

c) joyful complimentarity

d) djs' usual scholarly precision of argument

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

In what context did you use the "Ignorant-bigot" epithet?

Was it in connection to liturgical theology or sacramental?

Alex