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

You paint with a wide brush, I think we must remember our Church encompasses an area greater than Pennsylvania and Ohio. If one would venture to the eparchy of Van Nuys, one would notice a vibrant Church, struggling to establish outreaches because of a lack of clergy. But this is changing.

Among our clergy (not bi-ritual, mind you) you will not only find a Hutzko and a Pipta, but a Hernandez, an O'Brien, and a Montalvo as well. Within our parishes the families are just as diverse, but I would not say the immigrants from the "old country" left because we are not an immigrant Church.

For those who sound the death knell for our Church, please remember there is a vibrant growing Church in the West.

For those who complain the Church did not evangelize, whose responsibility is it to evangelize? The bishop or priest did not come to my doorstep and invite me to the parish. The invitation came from another parishioner. He certainly did not need an evangelization program to invite me to Liturgy. Evangelization is our responsibility and is just as easy as inviting someone to Liturgy. Even the "immigrant" Church needs to evangelize or die. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Amen, Father Deacon. This Church has a mission not only far beyond the old country but far beyond Pa. as well. Not only do we have vibrant Church out west but in Indianapolis, St. Paul, and Homer Glen (Chicago). All are served by vibrant priests but sadly two of the three are served by priests who will soon retire. While thankful for bi-ritual priests that is really only a band aid in most cases. We need priests that are fully Byzantine not as a ritual but as a Church if we are to grow.

Our Church has always used the vernacular. Let us not change that.

Dan L

Unity: Your simplistic story is interesting. Are you certain enough of its accuracy, in particular exactly what was represented to Rome by our Bishops, to make accusations of lying?

Dan,

thanks for your reply.

Serious question, not rhetorical.

Do you consider Old Church Slavonic to be venacular?

If you do then the many Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine need to be told that all the work they went through to go to Ukrainian was a waste of time. Many churches that I went to in Ukraine used modern Ukrainian.

If you don't then our church has not always used the vernacular. (i.e. to the best of my knowledge I don't think that Blessed Bishop Theodore Romzha said the liturgy in Rusyn or Ukrainian).

Which one is it?

Michael Cerularius

1. It is change for change's sake. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that a single other reason why revision, re-editing and change is necessary.

2. One reason it is an "experiment" is that we have no idea what the pastoral consequences will be. Some of us us are warning the Archbishop that they will be 'grave'. Is anyone listening?

3. An "improvement"? Now, that is a good one. Anyone want to "improve" the Mona Lisa, a Shakespeare play, a Gogol short story? Please, I think the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is a work of art, and I am continually horrified at the very idea of amateur and ill-advised improvements.

Nick

The first question I would ask is: who is the amateur? But that is beside the point. St. John Chrysostom modified the liturgy of St. Basil. In his time, I can imagine that people would have said as they do now "Why experiment? It's change for change sake!" On the other hand, even after the liturgy was established, there has been a subsequent history of the liturgy where it was (and continues to be) adapted and changed.

The notion that the liturgy was just established, and no change happened afterward is just not true. Ever read about the Old Believer controversy? This conflict some people have smacks of Old Believer naivity (with less excuse, since one ca learn the lesson of the Old Believers).

It is a change for the sake of improvement. Several people have already commented upon this, and demonstrated areas of improvement which are in consideration. To say it is a change for the sake of change is outright dishonest. To call those involved amateurs makes me wonder who precisely you are, and what charism or background you have to qualify you as being capable of judging with a higher authority. Certainly if you had the background, however, you would not come back with "it's perfect" as a response because you would know in its history, the liturgy has been consistently revised since the time of St John Chrysostom himself. Just look at what St John of Damascus did.

To call it an experiment because one does not know what reaction we will get because we are modifying (improving) the liturgy would also mean every single liturgy is an experiment. We do not know what reaction the people will have with the homily. We do not know how the liturgy will be chanted today: what if the cantor is off key? We do not know what spiritual experience one will have from a particular liturgy. Enough with the red herring.

Father David stated again yesterday, that Rome has approved of this "new liturgy". I wonder who can explain why Rome would approve of something, that at the same time it forbids?

Free translation, adaptation, inclusive language, re-ordering the text has all been forbidden in the new norms of translation. If indeed Rome has approved of this "new liturgy" (I don't believe it), then surely the new norms have changed the situation, and reversed their position!

If the "new liturgy" is mandated by the Archbishop, it will cause confusion and pain to those loyal Byzantine Catholics who are caught in a dilemma. Should they obey the Archbishop (who is disobeying Rome's directives). Or should we obey Rome (and disobey the Archbishop's directives).

This is a dilemma of conscience, and so the Liturgy (when it is published) will have be appealed to Rome, the revised liturgy will have to be sent to Rome for a final decision.

If indeed Rome then says, that its new directives on translating liturgical texts no longer apply, or do not apply to the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, and gives permission, only then, will it be possible to obey both Rome and the Archbishop. Otherwise, the problem remains.

Clearly, we must beg the Archbishop to step back, and read the new directives on liturgical translation, and look at this proposed 'revised liturgy' once again, to see if they are followed.

If the Archbishop is determined to defy Rome's wise and prudent directives (born from experience), then Rome will have to be involved again, and there will be an appeal of the Archbishop's decision.

Nick

Dear Henry,

Read Benedict XVI, in the quote I posted earlier on the web. Anyone who attempts to re-paint Mona Lisa, is an amateur.

The Liturgy has always evolved, it is a living thing, and it will continue to do so.

Revision, by committee and decree, is a Latin idea, and then it was only invented after Vat II (Benedict points out its limitations, and contrasts it to the model of the East).

Who am I to defend the traditional liturgy? Who do I have to be!!!

I am a parishioner, a regular communicant, I pay my tithe to the Church, and I have a voice. The liturgy is not the property of the Archbishop, or a committee! It is mine too, and I can defend it if I want to.

One or two valid corrections have been suggested (we can rehearse them if you want to), and they should be made. There is no dispute about them.

Other errors and things that could or should be corrected, are left in place! Why? Personal preferences of the Archbishop and the committee.

Litanies are left out, inclusive language introduced, rubrics added or taken away, other rubrics clearly mistranslated introducing new errors.

It is not an improvement, it is a corruption.

Corrections could be made to the '64 translation. But what has been produced are not corrections, they are an amateur, sloppy, confusion instead.

Someone else's personal preferences, are not my idea of an improvement.

So is it my taste against yours?

No.

When there is doubt, then carefully follow the directives on liturgical translation issued by Rome. They were issued precisely to save us from this kind of nonsense, and this kind of conflict.

Nick

Nick,

From what *I* understand of the directives, they were aimed to the LATIN RITE and about the LATIN RITES's liturgy. This demonstrates that by appealing to them, you are appealing to a LATIN document. It moreover seems to suggest you do not think the Metropolitan is really autocephelous -- and it would also seem, you do not want him to have authority within his direct jurisdiction. You want him to be a yes-man to the Pope, instead of being the authentic leader of an ecclesia.

Latinizations which you support and push are the things which we are working to remove, and it is indeed clear that it is an improvement when our Bishops 1) act as Bishops and not as yes-men 2) take their authority to heart.

As a secondary note, liturgical rubrics in the East are viewed not as legalistic documents in the way they are in the West (though the West is not as legalistic as say "traditionalists" want it to be). The priest, let alone the Bishop, has the authority to innovate to some extent, and I have known priests to follow that perogative.

Perhaps knowledge of the matter, and not an "it's the end of the world, amateurs are tampering with things" mentality would help.

My thanks to those who responded to yesterday�s post. It is good to know, whether you agreed or not, that more light has been shed on this process.

Just some minor observations:

The Administrator seems to think that this is more of a revision than it actually is. Most parishes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic will notice anything more than some textual modifications. The biggest problem there will be for cantors, who have to adapt text to music, but the Inter-eparchial Music Commission is working on that. Of course, and for fairly obvious reasons, this may stir up a hornet�s nest on its own.

The policies of disclosure of the text is not under my control, it was set up by the Council of Hierarchs who appointed the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. I tend to be idealistic myself, so probably would have made the proceedings public from the beginning. The reaction on this board, however, convinced me of the wisdom of the bishop�s decision, it would have paralyzed work for years. Though I probably still would have favored a wider consultation. The text has been released to the clergy, and the reactions have been mostly favorable. (Aside to Incognitus: not everyone disagreed, and, in fact, most agreed). It will be released to the faithful before it is mandated, along with an explanatory video, for parish use. The difficulty with any program for the faithful is that pastors know that less than one-third of the people ever come to anything except Sunday Liturgy. They could be bombarded with information, and still be totally surprised when it happens.

The chanting aloud of the presbyteral prayers is an important point, and I have made my position clear on that. I did not come to this position over-night but over years of pastoral experience, and I find most others concerned about the pastoral celebration of the Liturgy agree with me. In response to Incognitus� request (I think I�ve actually done this before), the presbyteral prayers that should NOT be said aloud are: the Prayer before the Icon Screen, the Prayer of the Prothesis, the Prayer before the Gospel, the Prayer of the Cherubicon, the Prayer before �Holy things ... ��, and the Prayer of Ablution. These are private prayers of the presbyter. Also, probably, the Prayer of the Third Antiphon and the First Prayer of the Faithful (from academic study of liturgical structure).

The Lviv Sluzhebnik was published in 1905, it was based on the authority of the earlier Synod of Lviv.

As far as I know there was no consultation between Rome and our bishops on the use of vernacular, though there was consultation on the promulgation of the 1941 text. The first contact about vernacular, in my knowledge, was the request for approval of the English text submitted by Elko. However, I have heard that Rome (the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches) did at one point forbid/discourage the use of English, though I have no documentation. Elko did celebrate the Divine Liturgy in English at the Second Vatican Council. I was there, and in fact was second deacon. The choir of the Russian College sang the responses. In preparing the 1965 translation, I mentioned that there were no Greek scholars on the Commission and this is true, however, that does not mean that some of them did not know Greek. I don�t know the process they used, but I think certain problematic Greek texts were targeted and scholars were consulted on these points. The bishops at the time did discourage the following of the liturgical form (rubrics) but they did expect the text to be used, that distinction is sometimes not clear in the postings.

The ablution of the gifts after Communion remains a sticking point. In the great majority of our churches, the priest consumes the gifts during the hymn, �May our mouth be filled ... � Rome mandated that this cannot be done. There is no problem if a parish has a deacon, since the deacon can ablute after the Ambon Prayer. However, many of the pastors have adopted the policy of greeting people after the dismissal, so that the ablution is delayed for quite awhile. As one of the priests in the Parma Eparchy observed, �Obviously Rome is not aware of American pastoral practices.� There are solutions, of course, I�d like to see the restoration of antidoron, but .. It remains a sticking point.

The approval of the text was received in March 2001, and the Archbishop showed me the letter. However, within three weeks, Archbishop Procyk died. In the subsequent interregnum and the settling of a new Archbishop in his position (half the Council of Heirarchs was changed) the process of final promulgation was delayed.

Friends,

I do believe that the real problem is the need for our bishops to be assertive positive leaders and pretty much ignore the whiners in our midst. By leadership I would say they must send copies of this liturgy for study by the people. They must stop acting out of fear about what people will do if changes do occur. They must listen to the prophetic voices in the Church, even if they are few in number, because they speak with a heart devoted to the Church and willing to pay a heavy price for speaking out.

We consecrate our bishops not to be fearful and listen to whining. We elect our bishops to set forth a course of action, pursue it with all their might, and to call the rest of us to follow. If they listen to the whiners the Church will die.

Dan L

Are you whining about the whiners (defined as people who disagree with you)?

Michael Cerularius

Dear Henry,

Because, I presume, they never thought the Byzantine Church would plunder its way into this nonsense (simplifying and re-ordering the liturgy, inclusive language, etc. etc.)

I appeal to Rome for help, because the revision of the Byzantine liturgy is misguided.

But there is still time, for the Archbishop to think again, get some advice.

Bishops are ordained to defend the faith, and faithfully pass on the tradition, not revise it.

Whining is just complaining and moaning. I would not have to object, if the errors in this 'revised liturgy' were absent.

But if my voice is seen as negative by you, I also have a positive suggestion (not a whine).

Publish a complete, accurate, rigorously faithful, exact, elegant translation into english (without inclusive language, abbreviations, alterations or subjective improvements of any kind, not warranted by or found in the original text.)

Nick

Michael,

Let me be very specific. I've never seen anyone on these forums who whine as much as you do.

I will state my position as clearly as possible one more time.

I think the bishops have made a mistake in not distributing the new translations for study to the people before this.

I think they can in part redeem themselves by sending them out now.

I think those who have been complaining about the proposed liturgy without seeing it are professional complainers who I wish would just shut up. I know that won't happen but I wish it would.

I believe the liturgy will always be changing in minor way. It always has so there is no reason to believe it will stop in the future.

I believe that the exact wording of the liturgy that is proposed is not really the issue many posters including especially yourself. The issue is you want your way and to hell with the Church.

I believe that institutions come and go. Those who survive and grow are those who are dynamic about reaching people for the kingdom (Where O where is Dr. John?) Those who die out complain endlessly about everything.

Does that clarify my position?

Dan L

Dear Dan,

I agree with this point. The real problem lies with the bishops, who seem to have lost touch with their people, and have misunderstood their responsibilities.

But, and I can not make this point too strongly, those who insist that we 'shut up and follow the bishops' and 'trust the bishops' need to wake up and smell the coffee! Bishops make mistakes (big ones, sometimes, as we Americans know only too well).

Maybe Bishops would have made fewer mistakes, causing a lot less pain and suffering in our Church, if the voice of the laity was not looked upon as 'whining' and 'uneducated' and 'uniformed'.

Leave these things to the 'professionals'. Bishop knows best (with his committee).

No, the Church has moved on! The bishops must listen to the people. They must be strong, lead, yes!

But they must set aside the arrogance that tells them that they, and only they (and a small group of clerical advisors) really understand the needs of the Church, and should advise them on their decisions.

If the laity had spoke up years before, and insisted that the Bishops defend the faith, enforce the discipline, hand on the tradition, then we would not be selling parishes and property to pay for their mistakes.

Read the papers. "Trust the bishops" and "leave it to the professionals" has done our Church much harm.

Nick

Dan, I wish that were true. Bishops typically are chosen because they are good consensus builders, good committee members, good fund raisers - in short, good bureaucrats. Being a good politician never hurt anyone's chances, either. Having the abilities to "set forth a course of action, pursue it with all their might, and to call the rest of us to follow" would be skills to be hidden prior to selection as a bishop. Those skills would guarantee the individual would never be chosen as a bishop in too many cases. Fortunately, that rare individual does occasionally sneak through the process and become an outstanding bishop.