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

Now Steve, you know how upset the Administrator would be if we actually revealed that information.

Is Bishop Foggybutt not an auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Washington?

Incognitus

That narrows the field to three.

Charles

I thank Father David for his post.

I am aware that most of the changes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic are already implemented. These are the changes that I have been speaking against. These issues have been discussed for a number of years now, but have come to �full boil� again because we find that we are moving from a situation where a local bishop is modifying the Liturgy for his own eparchy (which is bad) to all of the Ruthenian bishops in America promulgating a formal revision to the Liturgy, one that does not conform to the official standard for the Ruthenian recension published by Rome (which is terrible). I think it needs to be stated that there are a sizeable number of people (and, if my friends who are priests are correct, clergy) who have been hoping that the new metropolitan would put an end to all liturgical revision. Or, possibly, that the higher ups in Rome would notice that these revisions are taking place and see how disastrous to unity these revision are, both to liturgical unity with other Byzantine Catholics and to liturgical unity with the rest of Orthodoxy.

At the pastoral level, I believe that people are already voting with their feet. Since the introduction of the revised rubrics here in the Passaic Eparchy I see the number of people attending my local parish declining. They are not complaining about the revisions. They just don�t feel at home anymore and are not coming. I know that it is difficult to compare the specific changes to the Revised Divine Liturgy with those changes to the Revised Presanctified Liturgy but the same approach has been used in revising both liturgies. Friday Presanctifieds averaged about 120-130 people for many years. When the Revised Presanctified Liturgy was introduced the count on that first Friday of the Fast was about 120. Since then I don�t think it has risen above 50 or 60 and the usual average is about 35-40. I don�t have the exact numbers for Sundays but I can see that two liturgies that used to fill the church to about 80% or 90% now don�t quite hit 50%. I can see where a Pascha Matins / Chrysostom Liturgy that attracted approximately 350 people a Vespers / Basil Liturgy / Pascha Matins now attracts about 160 people.

When my own 78-year-old mother (a life-long Byzantine Catholic) complains that she no longer feels at home at Liturgy I know something is wrong. When I find that she and her sister went to the Roman Catholic parish because they didn�t want to have to go to their own parish I know something is wrong. When I have to cajole her to at least go to the Pascha Matins portion of Vespers / Basil Divine Liturgy / Pascha Matins in her own parish I know that something is wrong. Yes, some might say that she just doesn�t �understand� that a few people believe that these revisions are for her own good. I just hope that our bishops realize that our churches are full of these people who don�t �understand� and don�t dismiss them as too stupid to understand.

The Liturgy is not broke. It does not need to be fixed.

Respectfully,

Admin

I know, I know,
I shouldn't have asked. I couldn't see through the fog. :rolleyes:

Back to our scheduled program:

To Whom it May Concern: my only objection to whiners is that I dislike spelling errors. My favorite wine is Dom Perignon, and any winer who wishes to present me with a bottle (or a case - I can dream, can't I?) is more than welcome to do so!

One thing about this thread; it is certainly attracting interest.

Note to Father David - the Synod of L'viv was held in 1891. It's well to note that its purported liturgical decisions were never even read on the floor, much less voted upon, and have no canonical standing. That's not just my opinion.

Incognitus

The impending (promulgation of)changes to the liturgy is not why people have been voting with their feet! Theyv'e been voting with their feet far longer than this has been going on. Within the Metropolia I see many parishes just hanging on waiting for someone else to come along and save them.

They lost track of the concept that the children really are the future of our church. Scandal, malaise, a general lack of focus has brought us to the point of parish size dwindling. Everyone wants "the good old days" back again rather than striving to make today the "good old days" for our next generation.

I say this from what I have seen in the visit I had to NJ this past week. Yes, land of the dreaded Pataki liturgy! :rolleyes: I survived.

Not all of our problems can be blamed on our bishops or our priests.

The uproar seems to be that 'we' can't accept the fact that liturgically most of us (in the true sense of majority) will not have and never have had any say in the promulgation of liturgical changes.

If we have the "good old days" there would also be low MASS (yes, that term). Nostalgia is very selective, we choose only to remember the good stuff and forget the bad.

Regardless of any change to the liturgy our parishes will still shrink without vision toward our future.

Steve
(pardon the generalised rant, see the first post in this thread)

I printed out this entire thread and read it carefully during my lunch hour. There are two posts I'd like to respond to - here's the first one:

On 06-06-2005 10:08 PM, nicholas quoted Tertullian saying that "Innovation is unlawful", and applied this to the revision of the liturgy.

Tertullian was talking about doctrinal innovations. The translation of any particular liturgy from one language to another is not a doctrinal matter. It has been done many, many times since the very first Liturgy, and will be done many, many more times in the future. Therefore, this quotation really doesn't have any application to this situation.

Steve,

I should think that if people really cared about the future of our church and how children are welcomed in growing parishes they ought to go visit those few parishes that are growing and healthy. I realize that it's a novel thought but it might have some merit.

Dan L

Second of two comments - I would like everyone to please put aside their Weapons of "Mass"* Destruction (*intentional Latinization! ) and re-read, SLOWLY, Eric's beautiful post below:

Eric's reactions should remind us that even though there may very well be a few people who leave because they don't like whatever the new Liturgical changes are, the Holy Spirit continues to bring more people inside.

Because there are still a LOT of people like Eric, and myself, and others who have wandered through a liturgical desert for most of our lives, and whose first reaction to an Eastern Rite liturgy - no matter WHAT translation or language is being used - is - "Wow"! and "Whoah"!

It is very difficult to believe that whatever changes are being proposed to the liturgy will diminish that kind of reaction in the slightest.

Steve makes a good point and I thank him for raising it because it offers me the opportunity to extend my comments.

I do not think that people have left our Church only because of the Revised Liturgy. They have left and are leaving for many reasons. The distaste for the Revised Liturgy is just one of many reasons, but still, it is a reason that needs to be considered and addressed. Generally speaking, people go where they are being fed. If they are not being fed by vibrant, spirit-filled liturgies in our parishes they will eventually go somewhere else (or nowhere at all).

I�m glad you survived! Many people don�t!

I disagree about the cause of the uproar. If we were making changes that were already commonplace across Orthodoxy or if we were working together with the Orthodox Churches to accomplish a specific set of changes I would not be objecting to them. My only recommendation in such a situation would be that such changes be introduced pastorally (over a decade or a generation) rather than all at once. The change I recommend now is to finally restore and celebrate the official Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension published by Rome.

Admn

Theist Gal,

I realize that not all Church celebrate as beautifully as do others. I doubt that that fact has much to do with the complaints. I honestly believe that a heart to heart talk with their priests might be in order to encourage them about the liturgy and to offer to help in whatever way possible. Perhaps there are some cantors hiding out here. I also believe that if some of these folks used their knowledge, I trust that it's real, to start some home centered vespers or the like they would be so busy that they wouldn't have time to complain about the jots and tittles but would find great joy in bringing others to Christ and His Church.

No one is ever going to convince me that the posts we've read the past several days complaining about the new translation will protect or advance the kingdom in any way. No one is going to convince me that the minor changes discussed thus far will have any effect whatever upon the future of the Church.

Dan L

John,

I hate to disagree with you, but I think in an ideal world the Orthodox ought to be taking cues from us regarding the liturgy. We shouldn't have to take cues from them.

Be that as it may, that we aren't taking cues from the Orthodox has certainly not been demonstrated in these threads. So far, I've seen nothing to convince me that the changes being made were not done with Orthodoxy in mind.

Dan L

Dan,

Thanks for your post.

There is not a single Orthodox Church which has mandated these types of changes or is considering mandating these types of changes. That should be enough for our bishops to reject this general revision to the Liturgy. All organic development must be done in conjunction with the rest of the Orthodox Churches, not unilaterally.

All of the changes that depart from the official liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension are unnecessary and must be avoided.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Ad Fr David and others have pointed out, currently the liturgy (meaning the "unrevised liturgy") is generally not celebrated according to "official liturgical books of the Ruthenian recension."

So to leave things as they are is also to do violence to the tradition.

T