www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Restoring tradition to our parishes

This topic comes up enough but what I would like to see here is an identification of those things that have to go and those things that have to be done.

The Eparchy of Parma is already in the process of doing SWOT analysis. SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. It is a marketing tool that originated in the business world. Unlike the corporate world that first defines its product and then determines its SWOT matrix, our eparchy is letting all its members participate, whether they know what the Byzantine product is or not. Another baseless tool that will go nowhere.

The product has to be determined first. Only when we know what the product is, then knowing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats will mean anything. If we don't know what the product is in the box, especially when the label is missing and nobody in management knows what industry they are in, then all sorts of SWOTs will be given, however related or not to the product they are trying to sell. If we still can't make up our mind if we are selling pencils or lawnmowers, then SWOT analysis will be futile. If we are in the business of selling lawnmowers, then its serves no purpose addressing all the SWOT analysis coming in from people who prefer to make and sell pencils.

For instance, there may be people who prefer to have an iconostas in their parish temple and consider those who want to remove them as a "threat." On the other hand, there are those who prefer not to have one because that was they way they remembered from their childhood. They may consider an iconostas a "threat." One then has to determine whether the Byzantine Catholic Church is in the business of having iconostases or not. This is only a mute issue to some, but a big thing to others. The same can be said of all four areas listed in the canons as what a "rite" is: a particular theology, liturgy, spirituality and discipline. Do we know what that is to give a good SWOT analysis? Do our clergy know what it is? or are there clerics fighting tooth and nail to defuse any restoration? Do our bishops know what it is?

SWOT analysis leads to mission statements and goal setting. The Norms of the Metropolia ALREADY have a mission statement, which leads me to believe they DO know what the product should be. Does anyone know what it is? Just checking.

So, before we begin itemizing what must go and what must stay, we must first determine what sort of business we are in and what product we are trying to sell. Sorry for the business lingo, but if the Eparchy of Parma is going to be using business tools, then using business terminology is appropriate too. We have many documents, encyclicals, canons, and catechesis material that can benefit a good product determination.

Joe

Joe,

As you probably know it was to this process that I vaguely referred when giving praise to our bishop. I am most encouraged by what is going on in our Eparchy and yes, my wife and I have turned our four part questionaire in already.

Dan L

Joe,

This question relates to the entire Metropolia not the Eparchy of Parma's choice of a business analysis method. I don't think anybody is interested in trying to define our faith in terms of business and product. I again ask what must go, what must stay, and what must be introduced.

Fr. Deacon Lance

First define who we are supposed to be as Byzantine Catholics. The statue "David" wasn't sculpted with no plan or idea what was to come of it. Once the idea or plan is in place, then the rocks began to be chipped away.

As for business and product. Parma IS doing SWOT analysis. All its members got SWOT analysis forms in the mail the other day to hand in. I only referred to what Parma is doing, not what I am doing. You have the right to disagree with it, but don't assume people are not interested, especially when the Eparchy of Parma has accepted this method and has given its members a deadline to submit them. I would suspect that it wouldn't be happening if the bishop didn't give his approval.

I remember sixth grade reading. There were three reading groups: the fast and smart group, the average group, and the slow and somewhat handicapped group. Different texts for each group. The same can be said for the four eparchial jurisdictions. What is up to speed for one may be behind the eight ball for the other. Some of us, as you stated earlier about the 'curve', have already been there, done that. The question is: are those who have been holding out for decades ready? What are they braced for?

And when, pray tell, has the entire Metropolia acted in unison?

Joe

Father Deacon,

You've already indicated a resistence to change. What do you want us to say? I don't wish to argue with you.

Dan Lauffer

The short answer is �It depends�.

The long answer is, well, longer.

There are those in our Church who are in favor of revising our liturgical tradition using the same principals that the Latin Church used after Vatican II to revise their liturgical tradition. The revisions proposed by these �Revisionists� (many of which are already mandatory in three of our four eparchies) are nothing more than neo-latinizations. Those who support these new latinizations really have no ground to stand on from which to oppose the latinizations inherited from previous generations. They cannot legitimately argue for an updating of the liturgy to make it more meaningful to Americans while at the same time denying others the right to retain the other Western customs and traditions they adopted from the Latins.

There are also those in our Church who are in favor of restoring our liturgical tradition, to make it faithful both to Byzantine Orthodoxy and the Ruthenian Recension (as it was prior to the Union and allowing for natural growth and development). These �Restorationsts� are very consistent in seeking to promote a restoration of our liturgical patrimony in harmony with the excellent directives given in the 1996 Liturgical Instruction . I believe that it is only this second group that can legitimately speak towards the removal of latinizations.

What has to be done is easy. We need to restore a good prayer life to each of our parishes. The cycle of Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy can do wonders for creating a spirit-filled parish family. Good liturgy creates a demand � both for more good liturgy as well as the more external elements of our Byzantine-Ruthenian Tradition.

Mr. Administrator,

Please tell us what you consider are neo-Latinizations in those three eparchies. And can you explain what you mean by "Revisionists?" And who are responsible for implementing them? Do you think our restoration process resembles a cafeteria? Short or long answers are OK.

God bless,
Joe

Dan,

Nor do I wish to argue. What I am trying to draw out in this conversation is what is it that people feel needs to absolutely be done away with, what needs to be added? What is necessary and what is negotiable or a matter of style, especially in light of current mainline Orthodox practice?

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree totally. We learn though the prayers we say, and learn even better what we chant. The structure we had made it possible for illiterate peasants to have a far firmer and more accessible grasp on scripture than our literate, learned selves who are deprived of this full cycle.

Everything else, adding or cutting - including such tough decisions as whether to enculturate the bridal procession or not - is of far, far secondary importance, IMO, FWIW.

I don't think it is fair or accurate to say they are using the same principles the Latin Church used after Vatican II especially when the Orthodox do the same things. I will agree they are revisions and not restorations, as they are sometimes abbreviations or not what we have done in the recent past. However, I don't see the omission of a few petitions and the taking of the Anaphora aloud as a great step away from our tradition. Rather than think of the revision as a mandated maximum which I understand it is not, I believe it is intended as a mandated minimum that avoids many greater shortcuts and omissions that occur today. The mandatory taking of the Anaphora aloud has been debated before and has its pros and cons but I think the pros outweigh the cons. The OCA is about 50/50 on this practice. Those trained at St. Vlads take it aloud those trained at St. Tikhon's take it silently, so it cannot be said we are taking a different than the Orthodox in this regard.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I appreciate Father Deacon Lance's question - and I am in substantial agreement with the Administrator's response. I shall attempt to address this myself, but that will take me at least a few days. Incognitus

Dan,

I think you misread what I am saying. If I had my druthers I would magically change all of our parishes into Annunciation. But I have no magic, I have reality.

Sometimes I think you don't realize what a fortunate situation your parish had. You basically got to start over from scratch like a brand new mission but had the benefit of two established parishes. I don't think it is coincidenc ethat the missions and newer parishes are farther along and the older ones are not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I thank Father Deacon Lance for his post.

The current and proposed revisions of our liturgical tradition are indeed based upon the very same principles used at Vatican II � if not in intent then definitely at least in the way they have been implemented. This is evident in many things, from the elimination and/or shortening of litanies (thus stealing prayers from the people) to the texts themselves (attempts to assign exact meanings in translations to things that are very inexact in the original texts) to the mandating of the taking aloud almost all priestly prayers, regardless of the violence that this does to the flow of the liturgy.

It is incorrect to state that the Orthodox are already doing the same things. One will find occasional examples of some of these elements of liturgical revision among some Orthodox, especially here in America. [It is certainly not 50/50 in the OCA. My guess is that statistic was invented by someone who supports the revisions to our liturgical tradition.] But the Orthodox in America comprise only about 0.2% of all Orthodox Christians in the world. Further, not a single Orthodox diocese anywhere in the world has mandated liturgical changes similar to those now mandated in most of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church. Most of the remaining 99.8% of Orthodoxy are totally unfamiliar with these liturgical revisions. Can anyone actually justify the formal alienation of our liturgical tradition from that of the rest of Orthodoxy?

I also disagree that the Revisionist Liturgy is intended as a mandated minimum. In the Passaic Eparchy it is all that is allowed. It is prohibited for priests to take the full liturgy.

I further disagree that it is intended to avoid the many greater shortcuts and omissions that occur in some places. If one cannot get our priests and parishes to celebrate the traditional liturgy than it is very unlikely that these same people are going to embrace a revised liturgy. Lowering the standard never, ever, raises quality of the whole.

Fr. Elias,

You state:

"I am increasingly disturbed by the bolder and more insistent use of neutered and inclusive language in texts I have seen, which I am not sure is free from the danger of heresy. On this subject, I believe Rome has also been clear.

In answer to Father Deacon's question in this thread, I think that the drive to 'culturally conditioned' neutered and inclusive language must be resisted, with zeal.

Most significantly, the desire to re-write scripture (which includes the psalter) and language which clearly draws on scriptural images, to suit american feminists' taste, must be utterly rejected."

On this we are in complete agreement. However, from what I have seen it is not at all consistent. The Sisters of St. Basil's texts are changed because the changed things like Psalm 1 from Blessed is the Man to Blessed is the One but something as traditional as the ending to the dismissal "because He is gracious and loves mankind" gets changed to "because he is gracious and loves us all" yet in the various troparia lover of mankind is left untouched.

Fr. Deacon Lance