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

FATHER DAVID IS INCORRECT. WHEN THE TEXT OF THE NEW LITURGY WAS PRESENTED TO THE CLERGY LAST MONTH THE CLERGY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION OR DISCUSS THE CHANGES.

THE CLERGY DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW LITURGY. They are overwhelmingly against the new liturgy. Father Petras is relying on the obedience of the clergy to their bishop to get the new liturgy accepted.

Parma has had elements of the new liturgy for almost 20 years and there are still red book parishes that refuse to use the Petras-Pataki Liturgy. Pataki mandated these and more changes in Passaic when he went there and there are still about 25 or 30 parishes that proudly use the red book. Others use the Pataki liturgikon but follow the red book rubrics. The Pataki liturgikon is only used when the liturgical police are around.

Henry,

I agree. What is your position on the future of the BC Church? I'm convinced by Father Loya's argument that our future depends upon starting over again, cleaning out the ineffective parts, and putting our resources into growing areas.

This will probably mean that for the near future we will continue to shrink as an archeparchy. It looks like we will have to suffer some more before those who remain are willing to really get serious about the future.

I really believe that at least half of our present congregations will have to either merge or die off before we can grow. Too much of our resources are used to prop up congregations that spend most of its time complaining and not growing. Will more of our priests be invigorated by a comprehensive plan? Will the bishops support a comprehensive plan? I have serious doubts that either will happen.

At the same time I'm committed to work for our growth. We must set a course for growth and I pray that it is with the bishops and not despite them. I don't see any other faithful recourse.

I believe that if we are faithful we will grow. All this complaining is worse than useless.

Dan L

I already resolved this for you.

There was no such consensus. Moreover, that rumor was put down by Fr. David in no uncertain terms.

Rather long threads, perhaps you could give a highlight. IIRC, however, there were no violations of LA documented. Just more rumors and tendentious interpretations of LA.

Michael,

"I hope I don't lose my whining award because of this."

Your will must be engaged. You must want to lose the title in order to lose it. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Dan L

whew!

Michael Cerularius

These two statements are not contradictory. What is your point?

That is a bold claim that is probably nearly impossible for you to say honestly. If you can prove this. please do. If you cannot, then please let us know why you say such things.

No one but you, has even suggested such a crazy view of history. Liturgy evolves. But in the whole history of the East, I defy you to find one other example in history where the Liturgy has ever been revised by commission and then mandated.

I have seen the new liturgy (or at least the version marked "final version") that was distributed to some of the clergy. I have seen it, and found it wanting.

Nick

Nicholas, If you had read LA you would realize that a commission is required by Rome. Mandated changes? Ask the Old Believers.

Do tell.

I have a hard time predicting what might happen in the future. There are many possibilities which cross my mind, even the possibility that within the United States, we might be dying out. It does not have to end this way. It does depend upon what we do, now and in the near future.

One thing I think we need to do is to be more pro-active within the US. This means more than being active in the liturgy and in our parishes, or even active in associations like "The Knights of Columbus." We really need to get known.

I certainly hope to play my part in this by becoming one of the few theologians of our church. Now a part of that is to show respect for our traditions and indeed, it is not just respect but an understanding and faithfulness to it. But it also must be (for lack of better word) more open than what many people want it to be. If one studies history, we will realize the East was a major center of "inculturation." This does not mean giving in to the culture when it is in error (as many modern people think it means, both those who are for it or those who are against it). It does mean, however, being able to adapt our tradition to be trans-cultural, beyond the ethnic lines, and to be even "thinking about the future." One of the reasons why St Thomas Aquinas was to have a lasting influence is that he did just that in his time. He looked at the questions being asked, and was willing to face them anew -- and even draw out questions for the future. It inspired the Church.

Byzantines, Easterners, need to do this and not shrink away from it. Vladimir Solovyov I think was right when he pointed out the East tends to be "quietest." It is both a strength (spirituality) but a weakness, and right now its weakness is even more evident.

But it is more than just a theological renewal which is needed (though if we have one, it will get us noticed). When I went to Egypt, one of the things I noticed was how vibrant the Coptic churches were during the weekdays. Christians would go to their churches for picnics. The community stuck together. It is something like that which is needed for our communities as well. The answer is not in pot-luck dinners and ethnic food festivals which only attract the members of the parish, eating the same food they helped cook. The answer lies in actually seeing the church as the community which transcends the secular, and roots it, and the place where we want to reside. It must feel like home and not just "sunday duty."

John,

Are you a clergyman, a priest, or deacon in the Pittsburgh Metropolia? You state boldly that the clergy do not support the new liturgy. What is your source of information? A few priests you know or a formal survey?

TO everyone:

"mostly favorable" could mean 51% favored the changes. If you only listen to the 49% who are dissatisfied then of course your view will be that "most" do not approve.

I've heard people say to me "we didn't do that in our church", which is perfectly correct. The problem is when the local parish is confused with the metropolia.

again, just my OPINION

steve

I certainly hope 49% are not dissatisfied. If they leave, it would be a few more nails in the Metropolia coffin. I am reserving judgment on the "revised liturgy" until I see it. It is easy to pull phrases out of the liturgy and object to them, but they do have to be seen in context. It's that context that most of us haven't seen. I don't even care if Bishop Dilatoribus or Bishop Foggybutt think it's the greatest thing ever. They will eventually pass away and no one will care what they thought, in the first place. I want to see this liturgy in use and observe what it does for worship. It is the context that matters. It's not the isolated phrase, but the totality of our worship that has to be "heaven on earth."

Unity,

Accusations of lying is a very serious charge and must come with definitive proof. Please either provide proof of your accusation of lying or withdraw your accusation. If you not you will have earned yourself a 30 day timeout.

There is no doubt that we have most often been our own worst enemy. Our mistakes as Church must be looked at with charity. We cannot change what has happened but we can change the future.

Admin

I only used 49% and 51% as comparative figures to show how the statement that "most" can mean a simple majority and not resemble figures like 98%. (or in the case of the post I was replying to, the assumption would be ALL.) Even in the case of someone quoting that "all" the people they spoke with disagreed with something, it could still be representative of the minority opinion, though not properly representing the overall opinions expressed.
Even if it were 1% disagree to 99% agree. If only the 1% population are quoted and the remaining 99% are ignored when making a statement of the "fact" that everyone disagrees because one only chooses to listen to the 1%, is that "fact" correct? no.

What Eparchy is Bishop Foggybutt from?

I agreee with the statement that we should test it out first. (it has been test driven alrready, though not generally at the parish level). Obviously if it is being changed now, does that mean it can't be changed later? There's a thought.......

Steve

Being on the other side of the ritual pond, I am not at all qualified to venture an opinion on this subject, although I find the posts incredibly interesting.

I do have one question: why have some posters stated that the new translation is in violation of Liturgiam Authenticam? This document pertains only to translations for the RCC. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does not have any competency regarding liturgical translations by or for the various sui iuris Churches. If one visits the Congregation`s website to view the document
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_lt.html
one will see that this document concerns "DE USU LINGUARUM POPULARIUM IN LIBRIS LITURGIAE ROMANAE EDENDIS" - vernacular translations for the books of the Roman liturgy.

While I can understand that some might want the same rules to apply to non-Roman liturgical translations, to state that this or that translation of a non-Roman liturgical text is in violation of this document is just not correct.

Peace,

Charles