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

As an aside, and I apologize for taking us off track a bit, I'd like to comment on the Latin changes to the Western liturgy.

Romans were entrusted with a beautiful liturgy. What they did, do, and will do to this liturgy lies with them and we should all pray for them that they do what is right.

The responsibility of the Ruthenian Rescension, which I love so dearly, is, in part, in the hands of all Byzantine Catholics. I pray that you (vas/y'all) do what is right. I hope that you (vas/y'all) will look critically inward (like the publican) and not critically outward.

Cizinec,

That is an ideal approach. However, if that was the criterion that we used in the past we would still be including the Filioque in the Creed, excommunicating our fully initiated infants, celebrating St. John's liturgy during weekdays of the Great Fast, Stations, etc. Such piecemeal changes have been greatly welcomed, especially those parishes that were doing them all along before their bishops approved.

Here is the irony of it all. Parents could have always asked for their infants and toddlers to be communicated. No priest could refuse them. Our son was communicated (at three-weeks old) at his Baptism/Chrismation long before our eparchy made such practices official. He also communicated in the Pittsburgh archeparchy long before it became practice. This was simply because we presented him to the priest.

The same can be said about ther entrance ceremony for our wedding. My wife and I were the first couple in our families to be greeted at the temple door and escorted side-by-side down the aisle by the priest. A wonderful thing happened afterward. A lot of married couples thought it was the most wonderful rite they ever witnessed. One non-Christian woman told us that THAT was what marriage was supposed to be all about: man and woman, side-by-side. My wife's friend asked about it in her own Latin parish and found that this rite was the official rite of their church too. Nothing about a woman walking down the aisle by herself and being exchanged like property. They told their priest that they wanted to celebrate their wedding 'according to the mind of the church' and were both escorted by their priest down the aisle. According to their pastor, it was the first headache-free wedding he ever did!

In reality, we have come further in our progress by slowly restoring piece by piece. Unless we should look forward to a massive change all at once similar to some Gregorian reform, then waiting for the full restoration would be somewhere in never-never land. Unfortunately, this approach brings with it its own problems. In some eparchies, our parishes are ready for Orthodoxy! In other eparchies or regions, our church is still fighting the 1950s battles of 'us' (greek CATHOLICS) versus 'them' (the schismatic Orthodox), hence the Tridentine Latin look and feel.

Confusion reigns supreme when our church leaders just can't get it together. If no leadership is provided at the core of our Metropolia, then we are at a grave loss. For instance, in another matter, if one bishops states that he will not/never consider a married priesthood, and another bishop from another eparchy begins the process on his own, then confusion and maybe jealousy will occur. But this is the story of our church. Nothing new here. This reminds me of my own seminary days when I was told not to let certain clergy know that I had a contraband liturgical book. They seemed afraid that if it was known that our services were being celebrated that certain clergy could get in trouble. This seemed odd and totally bizarre. It would be like a Ford employee for getting suspended from work because he or she was driving a Ford vehicle! But truth is stranger than fiction.

Consider who and what we have to work with. I agree with the Administrator and others when they speak about the Ordo Celebrationis of the 1940s. What did our bishops do when a beautiful recension was published to end all the arguments? They half-heartedly adopted it. My own eparchy, Parma (Ruthenian), promulgated it in the early 1970s, THIRTY years later!

If we don't have Matins, Vespers, and the Presanctified Liturgy in our parishes in addition to St. John's Liturgy and St. Basil's Liturgy, then that is the fault of the bishops and the clergy. I don't want to suggest having liturgy police and altar nazis running around expediting what should have been happening all along, but our canons DO call for the protopresbyters to see to it that these liturgical things get done. If a priest considers himself nothing but an employee of the wellwishes of certain parishioners, then anyting BUT our traditions will happen.

Like all education processes, it takes time, learning, and gradual implementation. Some parishes CAN change almost overnight. Others take a longer time.

I am saddened when I hear that there is now a movement of clergy in our Metropolia who are trying to undo the changes that our late Metropolitan, Judson, brought on. Again, we have to consider who we are working with. Some mindsets are very difficult to educate, especially those who would rather work against ANY restoration of our liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary traditions. For these people we should pray for. This is the reason why we cannot even begin to think of a "full restoration."

The argument that we restore first, then understand may have its benefits. But if people do not understand what they are doing, then any restoration will fall flat on its face. As I mentioned before, our eparchy under its last bishop tried at the eleventh hour to implement pashcal changes. There was no date stamp on the memo, no instructions besides the do's and dont's, no mention of who wrote it, who approved it, and why the changes were being implemented. All of this I later learned was to combat "creeping paschalism" (whatever that is). The changes were not implemented and we are still doing it the same way we learned years ago.

If we can't successfully implement some minor changes to combat creeping paschalism, then how can anyone entertain the idea that a full restoration will be implemented first before we will understand it? This would be nothing but a will-o'-the-wisp (or ignis fatuus?).

God bless,
Joe Thur

Joe,

In part, I agree, in spite of my original statement, that education must occur first. How can something be implemented if it is unknown?

I don't think, however, that the tradition need be understood by the people before its restoration. Certainly the priests should be educated, as they should have been educated at seminary, concerning liturgical corrections. It is then the role of the priest to educate the uninformed parishioners (and I believe there is a large contingency of informed parishioners).

This brings us to the issue of enforcement. Apparently, no one is in favor of a "liturgy police." This is a position that I really cannot understand. Why is it a sin to not fast on a day prescribed by your jurisdiction but not another? A parishioner is required to show a certain obedience to the priest, the priest to the bishop, the bishop to the metropolitan, the metropolitan to the patriarch, (in Eastern Catholic churches) the patriarch to the pope, etc.* Without enforcement of the rules handed down by the hierarchy, a church is, de facto, congregationalist.

Does that mean that I think the parishioners should have a role in "policing" the liturgy? Yes. They should report abuses to the metropolitan. What the metropolitan does or does not do will be a matter for Rome and God.

And it's not as if these corrections have been in hiding for the past century, requiring some sort of sham historicism (akin to "neo-paganism") . Many are seen every week in the Orthodox churches next door to Eastern Catholic churches. I find it difficult to believe that most active, faithful, conscientious Byzantine Catholics don't know that. If the problem is that the church is filled with inactive, unfaithful and unconscientious parishioners, the solution isn't a history lesson. If it is not, I suspect the changes will be easier than you suppose. I also suspect that much of the bleeding the BCA is seeing is not caused by a radical restoration of the liturgy.

* This is a big etc. There is also an obedience to T(t)radition required of all Christians.

All I can add to this very helpful thread is that I hope I can get Father Loya to weigh in on it. I want our Church to stand up and reclaim our identity. I'm tired of seeing and hearing about so many of our Churches afraid to be something...anything. We cannot shed light in the world if we are hiding it under a bushel. Yet, I'm really am quite ignorant of so many of the specifics. I sure hope I can get Father to share with us.

Dan Lauffer

BTW Incognitus, I've thought many times of taking on a name similar to yours but did not wish to seem offensive. But a name like "Incongruous" seems to fit how I feel about my lack of knowledge sometimes. I'm running as fast as I can but my three years as a BC makes my legs awefully short. If you catch my drift.
:rolleyes:

I also apologize if I sound callous to those with need of special care. I don't think, however, that the entire BC church should be held back for those with special needs. The church does have a responsibility to care for those parishioners as well.

The Liturgy itself was a most marvelous vehicle of catechesis for St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others throughout the history of the Church. Why not let the fullness of the Liturgy do the teaching? Those who have been exposed to the richness of the liturgical texts of Vespers and Matins know this.

However I don't disagree that there is a definite need for instructional ground work in preparing the people for such a restoration. Because with this restoration services will begin to happen that will precipitate the predictable comments like "we never did things THAT way" etc. And that response without some preparation is understandable because many if not most of our people simply haven't ever been exposed to this type of liturgical life.

Far too much time is spent talking about this issue than doing something about it. If the numbers of both laity and clergy are telling us something, that something should be whatever we have been doing is not working.

Joe Thur (with whose posting I am this time in basic agreement) writes that:
"However, if that was the criterion that we used in the past we would still be including the Filioque in the Creed, excommunicating our fully initiated infants, celebrating St. John's liturgy during weekdays of the Great Fast, Stations, etc. Such piecemeal changes have been greatly welcomed, especially those parishes that were doing them all along before their bishops approved.

"Here is the irony of it all. Parents could have always asked for their infants and toddlers to be communicated. No priest could refuse them. Our son was communicated (at three-weeks old) at his Baptism/Chrismation long before our eparchy made such practices official. He also communicated in the Pittsburgh archeparchy long before it became practice. This was simply because we presented him to the priest.

"The same can be said about ther entrance ceremony for our wedding. My wife and I were the first couple in our families to be greeted at the temple door and escorted side-by-side down the aisle by the priest. A wonderful thing happened afterward."

But it could hardly be asserted that clergy and people were unfamiliar with "the Filioque in the Creed, excommunicating our fully initiated infants, celebrating St. John's liturgy during weekdays of the Great Fast, Stations". On every one of these issues - and more - there was substantial pressure on the priests to conform to these ridiculous practices.
The point about the wedding procession is even more illustrative - the books actually in use for weddings (such as Fr Hanulya's *Rite of Holy Matrimony*) prescribed that the procession be done as Joe and his bride did. It was the bride's daddy and the happy couple, often aided and abetted by mis-information from "etiquette" books, who insisted - and I do mean "insisted" that the priest permit the wrong usage.

Incognitus

Yes. It is, indeed, a strange thing for catechists have to instruct on what happens at the Liturgy (because the Anaphora was taken silent) or what should be happening (because the parish celebrates only the Divine Liturgy).

The early church had lectors that read the lessons/Scripture pericopes because of the majority of the people being illiterate. It could be very easy to tell more literate people that there is nothing secret about the Scriptures and if they wanted to hear it they can read it in the privacy of their own home ... after the Liturgy. This is absolute nonsense. Even today, when most people DO know how to read and DO own at least one Bible, they still listen to the lessons IN church DURING the Liturgy. What is happening there in church during Liturgy is PROCLAMATION in a public context and aloud.

We can simply go home and read 'about' what we believe without challenging it, but we still PROFESS what we believe in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in a public context and aloud.

PROCLAMATION and PROFESSION happen in a public context. Public implies openness, nothing hidden behind false walls of secrecy and a false sense of mystery. The Liturgy IS the mystery, not the cultus. We do NOT proclaim and profess secret things, even hidden things are known by God.

We should safeguard what has been handed down to us (tradition), not put them under a bushel-basket. Exactly, how many bushel-baskets are out there in our churches? How many extinguised lights smoldering? How much darkness?

Tradition should lead us to Christ.

When we sing the responses and hymns in our liturgies, we should direct them to God. Music can be abused or misused when it is done in a way to show off or direct attention elsewhere. This is why our chant is so beautiful. It has a built in attitude adjuster for those who'd rather entertain either by doing solos or having the choir 'sing for' the people. It is traditional because it basically follows the synagogue tradition. The Pharisees did not permit musical instruments.

Liturgy should be open and accessible to the appropriate people. Not everyone can partake of the Holy Mysteries or be the priest. But the notion of corporateness in our liturgy implies that we should not hold back that which is public. This includes issues of language and audible-ness too. Liturgy cannot happen when there is not two or three gathered in His name, hence the reason why 'private' liturgies is an oxymoron in ANY tradition.

Private Liturgy is as much an oxymoron as publically recited private prayer. For example, the rosary is recited PUBLICALLY even though it is a private genre of prayer. On the other hand, the main prayer of the Divine Liturgy, the Anaphora, is prayed silently even though it is a public genre of prayer. How do these things happen? How do we make private genres of prayer into public ones and public ones into prviate ones?

The Latin Church did it right when they remedied the problem of celebrating private Masses. They recognized that some practices are contra-practices of good liturgy. Are we as Greek Catholics immune from such contra-practices?

Church history has introduced us to the Old Believers, the SSPX, and those Greek Catholics who consider "Revisionists" in error. The issue isn't so much about "Revisionism" (their term) but the right to "Reform" the liturgy. Reform doesn't have to be a bad term. Reform tossed out the Filioque from our Creed. Reform lifted the ban of excommunication from our little ones who Jesus so loves. Reform brought back Psalmody to our Antiphons, Prokeimena, and Alleluias, as well as the Psalmody at Vespers, Matins and the Hours. Reform tossed out 'vows' at our wedding ceremony knowing full well that vows do not mix well with covenant-blessings or meaningless (and demeaning) property swaps. Reform re-introduced the full expression and celebration of our funeral liturgy. Reform re-introduced us back to our chant tradition knowing full well that Vesper hymns and Matin hymns can't all be sung according to the Resurrection tones. We HAVE TO learn the other tones!

Step-by-step reform is needed rather than massive alterations that will never happen no matter how much failed ECF will bring. Like the classic song, "Getting to know you," we have to learn to get to know who we are as Greek Catholic Christians.

Eight years of ECF will still bring parishioners who bolt out the door given the first chance because extra-liturgical education didn't convince them. When we have a marriage at our parish, I invite our schola to sing at the Crowning ceremony. ECF is one thing, singing and witnessing a real Crowning is another. Not only that, they also become familiar with the music and begin not to entertain thoughts about Hollywoood- or Las Vegas-style wedding ceremonies. No need for 'wedding planners.' And how beautiful the prayers are at the Crowning ceremony. So much rich Scriptural theology and church teaching about marriage! A horrible notion would be to take the prayer silently.

We, as Byzantine Christians, have a deep and very rich treasure chest of traditions. Let the good times roll!

God bless,
Joe Thur

Using such logic Joe should also be arguing that the icon screens must come down and the priest must face the people so that they may be catechized. If one is logical, one cannot claim that hearing is important while at the same time arguing that seeing is unimportant.

The Byzantine Liturgy � as celebrated by all of Byzantium � contains a wealth of theology. The catechesis does not just come primarily from hearing the different hymns. It comes primarily from praying them. Our liturgy is not in need of revision. All we need to do is to pray the liturgy and we will be catechized.

I am becoming more and more convinced that those seeking to revise our inheritance do not even have an elemental understanding of our inheritance. This underscores the need to restore what we have lost and to trust any eventual change to an organic growth across Byzantine Christianity as a whole.

Mr. Administrator,

//Using such logic Joe should also be arguing that the icon screens must come down and the priest must face the people so that they may be catechized.//

We will never agree on whether the Anaphora should be taken aloud. It has nothing to do with ripping our iconostases or having the priest face the people or whether rice shouldn't be eaten. You are interpreting the argument from one issue and re-interpreting it to apply to other issues to suit what you want to read into it. Call it eisegesis; a poor form of criticism.

As for seeing and hearing, it was only later developments that began to exclude the laity from hearing the Anaphora and walling off the altar all the way to the ceiling. These developments would not be so radical if not for the fact that they developed at the same time that the distance between the laity and the clergy increased. Laity did not need to waste their time listening to prayers if they weren't really going to participate (read: communicate). Such developed customs happened in all traditions, East and West. The Laity had to keep themselves busy doing something while the Mass was being "said." Private devotions, a popular response to the lack of public participation, reared its head and took a life of its own during the Liturgy. Even as late as the 1970s I remember attending our liturgies where most of the people did not sing the hymns (the choir did it for them) and prayed their rosaries. Ironically, I got my first (and last) rosary at First Communion. This was a mixed signal. Communion was a corporate thing, but I was getting my beads so I can participate in other genres of prayer and keep myself busy. Sorry, I like the corporate liturgy a lot, especially when other forms of prayer don't have the trump card. All of this reminds me of the story of Mary and Martha. Instead of enjoying the presence of the Lord in their midst, one got a bit too busy busying herself with lesser things, no matter how noble they were. The era of symbolic interpretation is one such example when interpretation got the bigger hand over the reality of the event. Latinization is just another volume to the sequel.

We should always be permitted to re-evaluate whether we are doing good liturgy. If the reasons for certain developments were to "fill the void" left by some dubious practice or belief, then shouldn't those inorganic (Vatican II's term) changes be addressed and remedied? It can become so easy to consider all liturgical developments as 'works of God' even though all our liturgies carry the name of men here on earth. So much for divine authorship! All traditions have inherited parts from the synagogue service and the meal that our Lord celebrated (whatever meal he DID celebrate on that night he was handed over). To say that liturgy develops solely by the Holy Spirit denies the incarnational aspect of liturgical-worship forms. We can see a parallel in the writing of the Scriptures. Here, we can run into the problem of fundamentalism, the true ignorance. If we place so much authority on the 'words' of the biblical text, our problems become compounded by the variances and disagreements that the texts may have. Luke writes one thing; Mark writes another. Ever closely compare the Resurrection narratives? The same can be said of liturgical fundamentalism. The 'received text' becomes so authoritative that any inkling of criticism is considered revisionist or heretical. But the Church has reformed itself many times. Even the Bible Christians have admitted their errors and not only re-evaluated their 'received' text, but also apocryphal books they unfairly removed. Criticism and a true love of liturgy and Scripture will recognize the incarnational aspect of both. Otherwise, we are doomed under the weight of ignorant and rigid fundamentalism. Fundamentalists spend a lot of time calling reformers "revisionists." But again, the problem of fundamentalism is that it paints itself into a corner (everything is the work of the Divinity), but fails to remedy or provide an excuse to those things that may challenge that Divine authorship (just read the Resurrection narratives and you too can get confused). We become stuck in the corner because we refuse to use the key with 'Incarnation' written on it. Maybe Luke had a different theology than Mark? Maybe Moses didn't write the Torah/Pentateuch since it includes an account of his death and the statement that Moses was the most humblest man. Would a humble man write such a thing?

//I am becoming more and more convinced that those seeking to revise our inheritance do not even have an elemental understanding of our inheritance.//

In the past, those who altered our liturgy to look like something it wasn't, namely a Tridentine Latin High Mass, were the culprits who didn't understand. Not only that, they didn't want to understand it nor did they ever want others to understand it.

//This underscores the need to restore what we have lost and to trust any eventual change to an organic growth across Byzantine Christianity as a whole.//

Would you consider the inclusion of the Filioque an organic development? or the practice of excommunicating fully initiated infants and toddlers until the 'age of reason' as organic development? These can hardly be considered "organic" developments. They were copycat practices from other traditions incorporated to fit like a square peg being pound into a round hole. If it didn' fit, then just get rid of all those things that proved to be embarassing, whether they be other liturgical services, theology, spirituality, monasticism, discipline, etc. THAT is our history, a history of a hybrid church lacking any identity and leadership.

God bless,
Joe Thur

So what's wrong with eating rice? Provided, of course, that one uses chopsticks and a good quality of rice. Incognitus

I disagree. Your logic is very inconsistent. You are the one who is picking and choosing. If it is so important to hear something it is even more important to see it. All I am doing is taking your logic and applying it consistently. If you cannot proclaim �Amen!� to something you do not hear then how can you proclaim �Amen!� to something you cannot see?

I like your story of Mary and Martha. It fits with this discussion. We need to sit at the feet of the Lord and enjoy His presence by celebrating the liturgy we have received and as celebrated by the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy rather than be busy about ways to revise it that suit the tastes of a few Americans.

Please note that there is huge difference between criticism and revisionism. It is one thing to be critical of certain developments in our liturgical history. It is quite another to engage in a wholesale revision of our heritage apart from the rest of the Byzantine Church. Your accusation that I have neither a love or liturgy nor Scripture falls flat. I have been very consistent in my argument that organic development does occur and that we should work within the entire Byzantine Church to allow this process.

This is why we must recover our inheritance. We cannot possible pretend to have a mature understanding of the richness and architecture of our Byzantine liturgical inheritance unless we have prayed it in our churches for several generations. Only when we have prayed a more complete liturgy will our understanding mature to that of the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

If you have read my posts on this Forum you know quite well that I have always tied organic development of liturgy as something that occurs within the larger Byzantine Orthodox Church. You should also know that I have always held that purposeful imitations of liturgical forms that are not our own and that have not been adopted by the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy ought to be rejected.

See:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002451

See:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002451

I must admit I have not been following the Byzantine Forum. However, someone, not too happy about what was being said, told me that this thread was going on, so i decided to take a look.
In speaking about Liturgy, the Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice of praise to God, in which we are joined togehter with the High Priest Christ, who entered the sanctuary once for all, in the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. The Liturgy has an eternal aspect, therefore, and must remain true to this theology. At the same time, it is being offered by a multitude of peoples in many languages, in many different times and places, arising out of a multitude of human needs, and therefore has been celebrated in different ways. I accept tradition - yes, I really do - but I do not tie tradition to one frozen formulation that is perceived to be perfect. It is clear that each people and each generation must take responsibility for the celebration of the Liturgy in the Holy Spirit, but we are jettisoning that responsibility by saying that it's already perfect and we don't have to think about it anymore.
I personally speak from a "born Byzantine" background. I can remember the Liturgy of over fifty years ago, and it has changed - and it has changed for the better! How can we ignore the revolutionary change of the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular? The question of the presbyteral prayers said aloud come with the introduction of the vernacular - obviously! If we are going to say "Amen" to prayers which we now can understand, we will want to say these prayers to be heard (and not read in a missalette or even a "people's liturgicon" or in catechism class, but when the priest is saying them. He is not praying for himself - I repeat, he is not praying for himself, I repeat, he is not praying only for himself - he is praying for all, and the priest's prayer takes NOTHING from the diaconal litanies or people's hymns. You want silent anaphoras - maybe you don't want the vernacular. Many Orthodox are aware of this - the question is raging in Greece, and there over fifty years ago already, Prof. Trempelas posed the question of the Anaphora said aloud - long before the Romans even thought of it seriously. It is not - I repeat, NOT, a latinization or even a "neo"-latinization. I have often wrote that I will defend this practice to the death, and I mean it. In 1967, I was sent to study Liturgy, and little did I realize then that some would use my knowledge to nullify my right to speak out on the prayer of our Church, by saying that intellectuals should keep their hands out of Liturgy. It is my Liturgy as much as, even not more than, some of the people who complain about "revision" (their words, not mine). And if I write to defend the anaphora aloud, then it is labeled my "personal preference." The Liturgical Instruction of 1996 wrote, "Considering that the Anaphora is a true masterpiece of mystagogical theology, it is appropriate to study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud, so as to be heard by the faithful." (But then this will probably be labeled the "personal preference" of the author of the instruction. It is a bit cautious for my taste, but at least there you have it - it can be done. It is not contrary to the theology of the Eastern Church. It is strange on how that upholding of what we think is tradition and how "latinization" should be avoided depends so much on the proclamations of the Roman Curia. But enough of this rant - I believe that many of the faithful welcome the prayers, in both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic communities. I think it will go a long way to restoring our Liturgy to true prayer in the Spirit. And it is obviously not simply my "personal preference."

Fr. Dave