www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "New Translation "of the Liturgy

Father David,

Unlike most of us here you appear to know something about the new translation. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is a breath of fresh air.

Dan L

I thank Father David for his post. As I have stated numerous times, I admire his love of Jesus Christ and our Church, and his effort over the years to serve our Church, even if I at times disagree with elements of it. But I also love Jesus Christ and my Church. I also have a right to speak about liturgical revisions that will affect both me and my family and friends.

Father David�s account of the man he visited in the hospital who never came back to Liturgy once it went into English is important in this discussion. It shows what can and will happen when external sources make major changes to someone�s spiritual life. I don�t know the details of how this man�s parish introduced English into the Divine Liturgy, but ISTM that the proper way to accomplish that goal would be a multi-year effort. I wonder if this man would have left the Church if smaller steps were taken over the course of ten years (the Epistle and Gospel in English in the first year, the troparia and a few litanies in the second year, and etc.).

Even if I agreed with the proposed revisions to the Liturgy I would advise against implementing it in such a shocking manner. An updated text that changes only what is absolutely necessary (because of poor translations) with the suggestion that priests pray the anaphora out loud seems more than enough for one generation. I have seen a few parishes very successfully move from the �Byzantine Low Mass� to a much fuller version of the Divine Liturgy in less than 10 years. To force the people to adopt a new standard overnight � whatever that standard is � seems to be very unpastoral. People have left our parishes because of the initial round of changes in Passaic, and even more so because of the Holy Week reforms. Are they going to be condemned for leaving? Are people going to complain that they were stupid and simply did not understand once they are gone?

Father David notes correctly that the 1964 Liturgicon does not accurately represent what is being done in most parishes of our Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. He is 100% correct on this and this is something I have constantly been speaking to. We have not gotten to the point where we are living the fullness of our Ruthenian liturgical tradition. The goal should be to work towards a nationwide celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the 1964 Liturgicon (or a new printing of it with minor corrections), a Liturgicon that is faithful to the Slavonic standard published at Rome. And, hopefully, there would someday be a parallel faithfulness to the official texts and rubrics by the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (we are one Church, after all). Until all of us live the fullness of our Liturgy and allow our Church to be formed by it we ought not to be making changes to the standard. I believe that the correct response to parishes that don�t celebrate the fullness of the Liturgy according to the Ruthenian recension is to teach them to celebrate it (over the course of a decade or so), not to revise the standard.

I continue to disagree that the Revised Liturgy is a step towards doing what the Orthodox are doing. (It is most certainly NOT a ��restored� Liturgy�). No Orthodox Church has mandated the type of changes this Revised Liturgy makes. Priests who would not follow the official Ruthenian liturgical standard (as given in the 1964 Liturgicon) almost certainly will not follow any revised version of the Divine Liturgy. The result is going to be less uniformity in our Church, not more. Retaining the official Liturgicon of the Ruthenian recension as our standard and teaching future clergy to celebrate it would be both good for our Church and a major step towards uniformity with the Orthodox. Comparisons should be made between the 1964 standard, the 2005 Revised Standard, the official standard published by Rome, and Orthodox standards (Liturgicons) and not between the actual celebration in a given parish (or even most parishes).

I will state once again that it is terribly painful to disagree with others in our Church. I respect their love for the Church and acknowledge that they honestly believe in the direction they have offered for the Church. My disagreement with the direction they wish to set should not be seen as anything except what it is.

Admin

Thank you Father David. Not just for your comments on the liturgy but for the bit of history.

Bless, Father David!

I too thank you!

And I also agree that the Ruthenian Church needs to be de-latinized . . .

Being Canadian, with all the multicultural connotations that that entails, I've never really appreciated what all the fuss is over language.

The push is on for English Canada to learn to speak French . . . and for French Canada to speak French like they do in Paris . . .

But there is a place for English liturgies. It's called the "United States" ( ).

I would never leave Church over the introduction of English into the Liturgy, mind you.

I just don't go into those parishes who have English.

And it isn't just me.

I know many Ukrainian Canadians whose families have been here for decades and whose spoken Ukrainian is "ne isnuyuche."

But they won't go to an "All English" liturgy "on principle" etc.

And you have a problem with married presbyters?

We have lots - would you like to have some?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Fr. David, I think more of this information needs to be gotten to the public.

Dear Father David,
CHRIST IS RISEN! [Indulge me; there are only a few hours left.]
Without any doubt, there are certainly mis-conceptions about the new translation of the Divine Liturgy. So long as the text is not made available, mis-conceptions will be rife. Inevitably, one wonders just what apprehension or fear is causing the �embargo� on the text.
Beyond question, the decision to use English in the Divine Liturgy � which began in the then Pittsburgh Exarchate in the mid-nineteen fifties, to the best of my limited knowledge � was of the highest importance, and took courage. That there were complaints is not surprising.
I can in some slight degree sympathize with the hospital patient who had not attended Church since the language shift, because [despite his perfect command of vernacular American English] he did not believe that he understood the English Liturgy. My sympathy for him is slender, because, as you correctly observe, he was not articulating his problem in a way which might lead to sympathy, and he clearly did not appreciate that a Church which would serve those who � like himself � were born and educated in an English-speaking country had better start speaking English.
As I mentioned, the L�viv Sluzhebnyk you refer to is the 1905 edition. Despite all the defects of that book (and it has MANY defects), the wholesale abbreviations practiced in the Pittsburgh Exarchate in the late nineteen-fifties cannot be blamed on any L�viv Sluzhebnyk.
Incidentally, are you sure that the Third Antiphon was totally out of use in those years? I seem to remember that there was a tradition, at least in a few �high church� places, of singing the Third Antiphon on the great feasts of Our Lord. But I may be mistaken. I remember very well that in some parishes the full Litany before the Lord�s Prayer was still in use � at �High Mass�, that is.

The 1941 Liturgicon is not without problems (what book is ever without problems?), but it is a most substantial improvement over 1905 - and thank God! I�ve never quite been able to grasp what motivated the successive bishops to resist the 1941 Liturgicon, but resist it they did, quite effectively.

On the language issue, though, it would seem (largely from anecdotal evidence) that Bishop Daniel and Bishop Nicholas were strongly in support of the shift from Church-Slavonic to English. Interesting � at the same period and even later, one could easily find clergy in the other Byzantine jurisdictions who openly said that the Church was there to serve those who were part of the ethno-linguistic base, and that those who didn�t speak whatever the going foreign language was should go join the Latins (who weren�t using English at the time, but that�s a minor point). At least Daniel and Nicholas grasped that the language shift was essential.

I�ve heard it alleged that what really moved Bishop Nicholas to publish the English translation of the Divine Liturgy in 1965 was his own wish to serve a Divine Liturgy in English as part of the program of the Second Vatican Council, and the insistence on Rome�s part that such a service would have to follow the 1941 book. Don�t know how true this is, but it would not surprise me.

It�s not quite true that there was NO consultation with Rome after 1950 on the liturgical problem � Bishop Daniel, for whatever reason, attempted to promulgate the 1941 book and its companion volumes, but his own hasty departure from Pittsburgh forestalled that move. I�ve been told, whether truly or falsely, that there were one or two other attempts.

You mention that the 1965 book was translated from Slavonic, because there were no Greek scholars on the then commission � but you also mention that they made comparisons to the Greek where they felt [it] necessary. That raises an interesting question; if they could not read liturgical Greek how did they make these comparisons? And on what basis did they decided when it was necessary? Did they consult any of the existing Greek-Catholic or Orthodox translations available at that time? Have the minutes of that commission been kept?

You comment that the Ruthenian Church moved from Patriarch Nicon�s Slavonic (which, as you correctly observe, is a slavish imitation of the Greek) to English. It�s true that the 1941 Liturgicon is heavily �niconianized�, to coin a neologism. But it�s also true that, as you testify, that�s not the book that was in actual use in the Pittsburgh Exarchate; the clergy were using the 1905 L�viv Sluzhebnyk, whose linguistic connection to Nicon�s reform is more distant.

Bishop Nicholas was not a man troubled by contradictions � especially his own! So it�s not surprising that he and Bishop Stephen put their signatures to a book that they did not, in fact, permit the clergy to use. Maybe it�s an extreme example of nominalism, or something of the sort. I realize only too well that seriously objectionable means were used to �discourage� priests from actually serving according to the �official� book. Father Taft has written quite pointedly about the problems this causes � priests who know that they are only trying to do what they are supposed to do, and are faced with grim opposition from the bishops who should be encouraging what they are prohibiting. That is not easy to swallow.

Anybody who can remember the liturgical situation even as recently as this past Sunday should be aware that the 1965 book is not what has actually been going on in most places. But the question is not so much what was going on, as what should be going on.

I will agree: there are very few places where honest prosphora are in regular use. I had to think carefully before I realized that your reference to the ablutions after the Ambo prayer refer to the deacon (if there is one � and one sees deacons much more often nowadays). I had almost forgotten the bizarre practice of holding the ablutions during the chant of �May our lips be filled� (which explains some of the wilder melodic flights of fancy for that text). I�d be surprised if someone somewhere isn�t still at it.

There really is more than one parish in the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate where the litanies are in full use. It�s not hard to understand why finding out where these few oases are � the sort of methods that Bishop Nicholas and Bishop Stephen used are not abandoned. Pity, though; it would be helpful to treat such places as �controls�, to try and see how the faithful are reacting to this usage. But perhaps I�m being utopian.

I remember, of course, that the other bishops were less than happy with Bishop Emil�s promulgation of the Ordo Celebrationis and other initiatives that he took in the early days of his episcopate. Anecdotal accounts of precisely how his brothers in the hierarchy brought him to heel will not bear quoting � and you probably know them better than I do anyway.

I don�t claim to know whether you are or are not an �enemy of litanies�, of all things � I once met a monk who declared his hatred of �thee� and �thou�, and who was quite upset when I suggested that there is something odd about hating pronouns. But which of us does not have his preoccupations?

You use the expression �liturgical literalist� two or three times. I�m not quite sure what you mean by the phrase. Could you elaborate? If you mean someone who insists on using every last word of the service as set forth in the Liturgicon and its companion volumes, I must admit that while I have met such people, they seem to be very few in number � so few, in fact, that they are an endangered species. I don�t remember ever hearing in any Byzantine parish church, Orthodox or Greek-Catholic, the chanting of the troparia at the Beatitudes, to take only one example.

However, you yourself appear to be espousing an uncompromising position concerning the quiet offering of certain prayers. When I�ve attempted to suggest that there are several viewpoints on the subject, you�ve not responded. Is some flexibility truly out of the question?

In my case, at any rate, it�s not a question of �restoring� litanies � I�m capable of omitting a few on rare occasions, but by and large I simply use them. No one seems to object.

The history you give is interesting, and arouses my curiosity. Why, I wonder, was it somehow easier to accomplish a major language shift than to restore the zeon? I�ll bet a lot that your hospital patient in Akron would never have even noticed the zeon. Doesn�t matter, but I�m curious.

I had not known � and please accept my thanks for the information � that Archbishop Stephen was actually strongly opposed to relinquishing the Filioque. Did he offer any reason? Silly question, I guess, but again I�m curious. Has anyone else any insight into what motivated him on the matter?

Bishop Andrew of Passaic is also wont to use executive measures in many areas, including his liturgical preferences. This can provoke a negative reaction even to �changes� which are objectively quite positive, and at the immediate moment it can perhaps be contributing to the somewhat unhealthy discussion of which you complain.

�Rome� means many things. I can appreciate the position of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches if they were not willing to get involved in what might have been a disagreement on liturgical matters among the bishops. But it should have been possible to arrange for someone to publish a review of, say, the 1986 Passaic Liturgicon in Orientalia Christiana Periodica even as OCP reviewed the New Skete �restored� Book of Hours. For that matter, would OCP not have published an article outlining the liturgical dynamic in the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate and proposing some moves towards a solution?

Objectively, the 1986 Liturgicon simply isn�t the same as the 1941 Liturgicon, and I don�t just mean the difference between Church-Slavonic and English.

You write that: �This text was submitted to Rome, under the provisions of the new Eastern Code of Canon Law, for review and was approved by Rome, with some further mandated changes in March 2001.� Thank you for the information. That was four years ago. Where is this approval published? What are the further mandated changes? Until the approval is published, in full, it is difficult to appreciate complaints about those who might ask such unwelcome questions. You yourself have just written that �the people have a right to know that which they are saying �Amen� to�. Very well; what then � in precise detail � are the commission and the hierarchy about to attempt to require the people to say �Amen� to?

No one in the forum discussion seems to have objected to the absence of the Filioque, the restoration of the zeon, the option permission to use the litany before the Lord�s Prayer . . . even the sponge is hardly about to spark a revolt of the laity and a new round of litigation.

Addressing the matter of prosphora vs. precut particles is apt to be overwhelmingly difficult for a decade or so; priests who have been doing things one way for many years are likely to be reluctant to change. I would not advise any attempt to use coercion in such a matter. Patience, and a very gentle, peaceful moral suasion can work wonders.

While I certainly consider you to be an honest man, it is clear that you have a strong personal investment in this entire project � that is not in itself a fault. But it does mean that you are not the best qualified person to judge the matter (neither am I necessarily the best qualified person to judge the matter). So we must wait and see just what, for example, the type of language in the embargoed text turns out to be.

You grieve that the furor over this escapes your comprehension. Perhaps you will allow me to offer a thought or two on the growing uproar:

a) the ridiculous secrecy surrounding the whole business. All that this secrecy does is encourage the rapid spread of rumors and suspicions, which in turn feeds the furor. That is natural. The cure for it is not hard to find: get rid of the secrecy. Publish the draft text, immediately and in full, and invite all those who are in the least interested to submit their comments. Once the initial nine-days wonder runs out, relatively few people will remain interested in any furor on the subject.

b) You suggest that �ANY CHANGE in the Liturgy, no matter how small, is bound to be immediately opposed by the majority of the people.� That�s not the kindest way of putting it. But it is true, within reason, that people prefer stability in their prayer-life and worship and resent the feeling that they are being manipulated to suit someone else�s agenda. When I remember the enormous efforts that went into the process of liturgical renewal in the Roman Church in the USA, long before Vatican II, and then remember that even so the introduction of the present Missal has caused divisions and hard feelings that are still very much alive, it is not at all surprising that people are distressed at the thought of some sort of �new Liturgy� being forced upon them. Respect for people, genuine consultation, genuine participation in the whole process, efforts to raise liturgical awareness BEFORE making changes . . . all this can help. It still won�t be an easy ride, but what�s going on now is no easy ride either.

Neither the Russian Church nor the Greek Church are opposed to vernacular languages on principle. The Russian Church is opposed to vernacular Russian, and the Greek Church is opposed to modern Greek, for slightly different reasons. Even the Old Ritualists are willing to admit the use of English, for instance.

Whether the new translation/ redaction of the Divine Liturgy has any relationship to the reform of the Roman Mass after Vatican II remains to be seen. But it�s hard to believe that any Catholic liturgical reform at present could be completely uninfluenced by the Roman reform after Vatican II. But again, we shall see � someday. You write that �It seems to me there are many nervous people who see any change as a movement to Protestantization�. Probably there are. There are certainly people who refuse to grasp that some changes genuinely are a movement to Protestantization.

You confirm that the new text has �some horizontal inclusive language�, and you mock those who find this distressing � implying that they are the moral equivalent of those who would have opposed the abolition of slavery. You recognize, though, that those who are indeed distressed by what is politely referred to as �inclusive language� have a �right to be unhappy�. On what could be called in the broad meaning of this term �political� grounds you may wish to reconsider the matter � since Pope Benedict XVI has expressed himself forthrightly on the issue.

Of one thing we may all be certain; the promulgation of this new text/translation/redaction will not be the CLOSING chapter � attempts to freeze the liturgy never succeed in the long run. But it will certainly be an interesting chapter.

Would you consider telling the readers of the forum what is wrong with the suggestion that the draft text should be published, precisely as a draft text, and that those who wish to comment upon it (without vitriol or rancor) should be invited to do so? Why is this an impossibly outrageous idea? With the use of the Internet, it�s even quite practical and easy. The stonewalling of this suggestion convinces me that the real obstacle is fear, and I am not alone in that thought. But what is there to be afraid of?

A return to the basic pre-1964 latinized form of the Liturgy would indeed be a dis-service to the Church, in several ways, but that is by no means the only alternative. The more sensible alternative is at last to implement the 1941 Liturgicon � in English, of course. Before there can be a successful new redaction of that Liturgicon, people must first have a serious opportunity to come to know it. Again, it would be very worthwhile to ascertain what the popular reaction is in the few parishes where that Liturgy is in regular use.

The importance of working and collaborating with the Orthodox in the whole matter of Liturgy is not beyond your understanding � it is an important principle, based firmly on Vatican II and more recent magisterial documents, and cannot be dismissed by setting up and knocking down a straw man, as if we should all be serving exclusively in Greek and/or Church-Slavonic (which neither the Russian Church nor the Greek Church in North America seem to feel obligated to do).

Had events been allowed to take what should have been their normal course in the Pittsburgh Exarchate (now the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate) it would indeed be time to reconsider the 1941 Liturgicon � had it been in regular use for over fifty years. It was not, and it still deserves its fair chance. By standing implacably against allowing that chance, you in effect ally yourself, ironically enough, with all those who have resisted that book ever since it was published. As has been said so often, a liturgical reform which is attempted without a thorough knowledge of that which is to be reformed is certain to fail.

Again, the Russians and the Greeks do not forbid the vernacular � they forbid Russian and modern Greek. I disagree with them on both counts, but that disagreement does not convey a license to slander them. The Russian Church sponsored the production and publication of Isabel Hapgood�s service-book � it�s now out of date, but it served the Church well and made vernacular services possible in the USA. That�s only one example; there are others.

The Antiphons do, by the way, occur in the Epistle lectionaries published in Rome for the Ruthenian recension as companion volumes for the 1941 Liturgicon.

If I have been engaging in anything in this discussion which could be construed as mud-slinging, I apologize unreservedly, but I ask you to bring to my attention the specifics of what I have said that constitutes mud-slinging so that I may avoid such expressions in the future.

You write that the �final proposal and final approval was not from me, and was not even everything I wanted, but it was from the church�. That, I should think, is one of the points most at issue � the failure to involve the whole Church, or even the whole of the Ruthenian Metropolitanate in the discussion. It is not so important which commission member, or which bishop, made what point � what is important is that this all has an air of �closed doors� and a tremendous fear of what �the people� might do if they learned what was taking place.

If this is really a restored Liturgy, as you write, then one naturally wants to know the criteria on which the restoration is to be accomplished. The Byzantine Liturgy has been in use for many centuries, and has known much change � so the question of the basis of a restoration is not frivolous.

You close with what you describe as three policy decisions which are essential for the good of the Church: first, the restoration of what I assume you intend as the full celebration of Baptism, Chrismation, and the giving of Holy Communion to children. If I understand you correctly, we have no disagreement on that point. Second, the promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon � and I would rejoice to agree with you if I thought you really meant that, but you seem to have in mind some fairly serious departures from the 1941 Liturgicon and you anticipate �there will be opposition by those who think it goes too far and those who think it doesn�t go far enough�. No doubt that is true � but it is not necessarily a mark of grace to find that EVERYONE disagrees with you. Your third desideratum is the restoration of a married presbyterate � and on that point you will find no opposition from me. You ask, cogently, �Why are there still problems here?�. I suppose the reasons are that the hierarchy and some of the leading priests are still convinced that the Latin world is more important than any other, and the Latin hierarchy in the US does not want a significant presence of Greek-Catholic married priests; powerful forces in Rome are still opposed to Greek-Catholic married priests (they wish to restrict this to certain territories as a preliminary to getting rid of it altogether), and so on. As Eugene Victor Debs put it, no slave is ever freed until he frees himself.

But that issue (the married priesthood), although it is certainly a consequence of a move towards liturgical authenticity, is not really in the same category so far as immediate discussion is concerned.

Forgive me, dear Father, if anything I have written is in any way personally offensive. That was not in the least my goal; far from it.

Fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Dear Father David,

Father, bless!

How do you consider that this revision was "from the Church"? So far, only the bishops, and eight select priests (two of whom are now dead), had anything to do with it.

No other clergy. No monastics. No women. No laity of any kind.

Only now is the "church" being heard (eg. read Vatican II on just who is the 'Church"), and you find it incomprehensible.

Nick

Originally posted by Father David,

I have come to the conclusion that if we really want to act in harmony with the Orthodox, we should do what their vast majority (Greeks + Russians) are doing and retain the Liturgy in a dead language. We should only celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches - even here making some modifcations, because there are minor latinizations in it - in CHURCH SLAVONIC. That would have the side benefit of bringing this wearisome discussion to a screeching halt.

Father David,

Where do I sign up?


Michael Cerularius

No, the reason for the change is not inclusive language... but something more sinister in our society that inclusive language represents. I personally can think of no *GOOD* reason for needlessly fiddling with the liturgy. Rather than question *MY* "agenda", perhaps you should question the agenda of those who would make these unnecessary revisions.

No, I don't object to change simply out of aversion to change... some things can and should be changed. But I DO object to change for change's sake, especially in the sacramental life of the Church. This experiment has been tried in West, and we have only to look at the results. Why would we want to make the same mistake? Aren't we're losing enough Byzantine Rite Catholics to Eastern Orthodoxy without giving them reason?

God bless.

In giving us a brief history of the development of the English liturgy in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Exarchate, which would become the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, Father David posted:

To which the Admin responds:

Unless I am mistaken, Father David makes the point that the approved form of the 1964 Liturgicon was never intended to be followed by the hierarchs. The priests did not follow the form of the 1964 Liturgicon because it was revised and different from the 1941 Liturgicon, rather, the priests did not follow the 1964 Liturgicon because they were instructed not to follow it. So it would appear to me that the Admin's analogy does not apply.

The Admin, among others, have argued that our Church should not make changes unilaterally and move beyond Orthodox praxis. What should be our guide to follow? As Father David pointed out a major unilateral change was made in the 1950's when our Church shifted to the vernacular. Not many Orthodox jurisdictions celebrate liturgical services in the vernacular, so should we devolve to using a dead language to close the "distance" between ourselves and Orthodox praxis? The use of English in our liturgical services, especially the Divine Liturgy, is certainly a change that distances our Church from worldwide Orthodox practice.

True, since most Orthodox do not speak english.

The '64 Liturgicon is published, and it clearly states that it may be used, according to the discretion of the Ordinary of the place.

You say that the bishops did not permit its use (I never heard this before!). Is there anything in writing to that effect? Is there any documentation, in which the bishops have not permitted the use of this Liturgicon? Since I was a teenager, I remember this Liturgicon in use by our pastor. If they didn't permit it to be used, why was it used everywhere?

Nick

Fr Deacon John wrote:

My experience is that most OCA and Antiochian parishes in this country use English, especially those parishes which have been established in the last 20 years or so. In fact, I can't think of an OCA parish that I've visited in the Diocese of the West which uses anything else but English. I'm sure there must be some but I'd wager they are older historic parishes.

That's a remarkable comment!

The Orthodox Church has been using English since the late 19th century, when Saint Tikhon blessed for ecclesiastical use the first English translation of the divine services.

Earlier, in the eighteenth century, the Orthodox Church used native Alaskan languages in her services.

One of the initial causes of the Great Schism was Rome's temporary refusal to allow the vernacular, specifically St. Photius' blessing St. Cyril to translate the divine services into Slavonic. All Orthodox Churches use the language of their people, albeit often in an archaic or stylized form.

Photius

Fr. David's breif review of Byzantine Catholic Liturgical history was wonderful. Thank you Fr. David. I want to make one sugestion and ask Fr David a few questions.

There are other parishes besides St George that are taking a "fuller" application of the 1964 Liturgicon. I know of two in the Cleveland area. It might be helpful to the commission and the bishops to seek out those parishes and start asking them questions about the celebration of the full text.

If in fact the 1964 liturgicon was not to be used, we as a Church have a rather large issue regrading intergrity. Based on the fact that the text was never to be used, and I would bet good money that there are no written records of this, we in fact lied to Rome in 1964 and have continued to lie until the present day. It saddens me that for all of the postings regarding the proposed Liturgy no one, to my knowledge, has expressed remorse for this sin. How many priests and laity were hurt by simply trying to be obedient to Holy Tradition and Rome? It strikes me as funny/sad that those who were flying the papal flags in their cathedrals were the same ones who were teaching their priests to lie to Rome. This alone should give us pause. I pray for the day that our bishops take their que from John Paul of blessed memory and aplogize for this grave sin. Before we can become signs of unity to the world we must heal the wounds of disunity within our Church.

It is true, whatever we are doing now as a result of 75 years of liturgical history is in fact organic change. But is it valid organic change? I'm sure when Vactican II spoke of organic change, the fathers did not have in mind deception as a valid orgin of development. The question becomes: What is really and truly so wrong with the 1941 text that it cannot be celebrated without modification (except for language)in the United States? Is the text in such grave error that it justified decieving Rome?

Again I would like to thank you, Fr. David, for your post and ask if you could clarify why the 1941 text and rubrics are not appropriate for American usage.