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

Can I (with respect) question something?


Is it of "pastoral importance" to keep the Liturgy "short for the people"????


My opinion probably doesn't count, 'cause I'm one of those notorious converts (and the Antiphons never made much sense to me 'til we began taking them in full) but ISTM that the Fathers never spoke about getting folks back out the door quickly as a liturgical goal.

I'd sure hate to see it as a major force driving decisions.

Meantime, my prayers are with all the folks on the Liturgical Commision - no matter what eventually (hopefully) gets promulgated, SOMEONE'S gonna hate it...


Enjoying balmy arctic breezes here on the Central Ohio permafrost,


Sharon

This is a neat idea. But the difficulty is exemplified by the fact that a common English text has not been produced within Orthodoxy. Thus, in contrast, to the administrator's thoughts regarding the lack of authority for unilateral, uncoordinated actions, such behavior is the rule rather than exception in indepdendent churches.

Who did the OCA consult with regarding taking the anaphora aloud? Who did the Greeks ask about their peculiar truncation of the antiphons (refrains without verses)? What cooperation is there in deciding the number of antiphon, prokimenon, and alleluia verses taken? The same questions of course could be asked about the other aspects of liturgical practice e.g., kneeling.

Evidently variations, of the types discussed here are NOT divisive to Christendom; at any rate they are not divisive to Orthodoxy. Thus their presence in the BCC cannot be taken as evidence of any particular attitude to communion of EC with Orthodoxy.

Well, let's see. If it is characteristic of "independent" Churches (what a ghastly expression!) to avoid working together on matters of common interest, then one would logically expect Catholic Churches to do better. There is also the never-ending problem that people who have already committed themselves to, for example, one particular variety of abbreviations become quite defensive about it and resist discussing the matter seriously with those who prefer a different set of abbreviations (let alone those who prefer the absence of abbreviations). But I am aware of at least one serious attempt by (what is now) the Orthodox Church in America to reach out to Pittsburgh in search of collaboration on liturgical translations, only to be rudely rebuffed. I am also aware that some time ago the Holy See attempted to organize some co-ordination in the matter of liturgical translations among English-speaking Byzantine Catholics; no one group would even consider any activity which might involve accepting anything from anyone else!
The very least I would conclude is that a greater willingness to listen and a deeper himility on the part of the various "jurisdictions" are both necessary and appropriate.
Incognitus

You are correct with your caveat. Orthodox jurisdictions tend to look at Eastern Catholic churches and their liturgies to measure the respect of Rome for Eastern churches in general. The more Eastern, the more likely the comfort.

This depends on two questions:

Are the variations something that was evident in the Ruthenian rescension before the union?

or

Are the variations something acceptable to most of Orthodoxy?

I know there is a respect by some Orthodox jurisdictions for very traditional Eastern Catholic churches and that some less traditional Orthodox parishes have been challenged and changed by their interactions. That is the kind of mutual respect and activity that will make steps toward reunion.

Metropolitan Judson, pray for us all!

I thank Joe Thur for his posts.

I do not understand the sense of some of his comments.

The Forum is a place where people can exchange ideas. That is exactly what has been occurring in these discussions. Joe Thur has certainly expressed his disagreement with my stated beliefs and I have welcomed his posts. I am a bit dismayed, however, that he would then label my posts as merely �pejorative�. His accusation that I have attempted to stifle discussion of this topic is ludicrous.

Over the years I have read many of the articles that Father David has written and I thank him for them as I have learned much. As a whole, however, they are not critical works of theology that have been vetted by theologians from across the Byzantine spectrum. [There is a difference between writing articles for newspapers and writing a theological treatise.] I would very much welcome the publication of critical works on this topic.

I submit to my friend Joe that, although I may disagree with Father David on some of his positions, I am capable of disagreeing while at the same time appreciating Father David�s work. On several previous occasions I have expressed my admiration for his work and for his obvious great love for the Lord, our Byzantine Church and for the liturgy. I have had the privilege of sharing a meal with Father David and know him to be great conversationalist. If we lived closer to one another I suspect we would both have a wonderful time discussing and debating liturgy. Joe�s implication that I cannot disagree with portions of Father David�s work while at the same time appreciating, learning from and thanking him for it is rather inane.

Those who seek change are the ones who need to make the case for change. So far, I have seen no great justification for the changes that are proposed. I look forward to continued discussions on these issues.

I always knew I liked you for some reason . . . .

Greetings all,

I am not a liturgical scholar on the level of some of the esteemed posters here, and I am relatively new to the Byzantine Christian tradition as well, so I am clearly not in a position to add anything of substance to this debate. However I�d like to express an opinion, and apparently, a preference.

I have found taking the Anaphora aloud as being a non-issue in my parish, everybody seems to like it, there are no complaints that I am aware of. The parish is about 60% cradle Byzantine. I like Anaphora taken aloud myself, what I miss is the longer litanies, I would like to see at least one long litany, it is very moving and speaks to the heart. �The doors, The doors!� was eliminated too, nobody seems to think that it�s important.

I would be perfectly happy to add another ten or 15 minutes to the one hour and twenty (in addition to Matins) we already worship if that was possible. I stand through the whole thing every Sunday and I love it.

I cannot believe that this is such a heart wrenching issue. The prayer is beautiful and I prefer to hear it.

Michael

Thank you to Joe for your support. As a servant of God, I only hope that He is working through me, and that I have the humility to recognize where he is working in others.
I also see in some of the more recent posts a possibility for continued dialogue on many of the issues brought forth.
I think before i say more, though, perhaps a clarification is in order. I have not questioned that what the Administrator means the traditional Liturgy is basically the text of the Ruthenian Recension prepared by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches in the early 40's of the last century.
Let me nuance that a little - it is obvious that a Roman congregation could not promulgate the normative Liturgy for the whole Byzantine Church, which is mostly Orthodox, what I mean is that it is basically faithful to the actual normative Liturgy used by the Orthodox Church. It is clear that some matters as the words "and the Son," the use of a sponge, and the use of zeon, which were placed in parentheses by the Oriental Congregation would not be questioned in the Orthodox Church, and that hence these practices should be done now without question, as I think the Instruction of 1996 directed.
My question is - am I correct then in my assumption that this is the traditional Liturgy you refer to. I just want to clarify this publicly, because sometimes when people approach me and argue for the "traditional" Liturgy, they mean the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik or some form of it - that this is our "traditional" Liturgy, and I just want it to be clear on this biard what we are talking about.
Also, will you agree with me that the traditional Liturgy, as defined above, is celebrated in all branches of the Byzantine Church, but with minor variations in various national groups.
However, you will probably disagree with my next statement - and that is that the Liturgy as proposed by the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission does follow the traditional form, and that the modifications are minor. I have already argued that the traditional text of the Liturgy as received does not offically call for silent presbyteral prayers, and that the practice of reciting them silently has evolved beyond actual written rubrics.
Secondly, I also made a statement that I consider rather important, that our Church has the right to act according to the pastoral needs of our people. I don't mean to imply in any manner, shape or form that we abandon the Byzantine tradition which we have inherited, but I would argue that pastoral needs override political needs. I think this discussion needs to be carried a lot further - for example, what about ecumenical needs. My response would be that a Church that truly acts for the pastoral needs of its people will not damage ecumenism, but it means at least trying to see all things according to the mind of God. Ultimately what I mean by all this is that it is good that we foster unity and preserve our tradition and many of the other points brought up, but at the same time, the most important thing we are doing in bringing our people to God. How we do that is pastoral.

Fr. David

Michael wrote:

Over in Town Hall we've started a poll on this very issue: Abbreviated vs Longer Liturgy. If you or others haven't already, stop in there and cast your vote. So far those who favor more antiphons and litanies are in the majority but only about 30 have cast votes.

I thank Father David for his post.

Father David is correct in his remembering that I believe that the 1940�s text of the Ruthenian Recension prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches should be the normative edition for all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension (with the notes as indicated by Father David). The 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik is, shall we say, quite a departure from the traditional Liturgy. I would also agree that this traditional Liturgy is the same one celebrated in all the branches of the Byzantine Church (allowing for minor national variations).

Father David is also correct in his second statement. I do consider the liturgy (the rubrics and some texts) as proposed by the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission to be a serious departure from the traditional form. The rubrics and texts that are proposed are not mandated in any other Byzantine Church and, if they become mandated in our Byzantine-Ruthenian Church, will only succeed in taking us further from both the other Churches of the Ruthenian Recension as well as the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

I agree with Father David that the traditional text of the Liturgy does not call for silent presbyteral prayers. As I have stated numerous times, I have no problem with individual priests choosing to take these prayers either silently or aloud, according to their personal preference. The liturgicon gives them that freedom. The issue I have is with any liturgicon that departs from the traditional form (rubrics and/or texts) in any way. If a rubric mandating that the anaphora prayers be taken silently, for example, was added to the liturgicon (or any other change) I would have equal objection. The Liturgy is not the property of the Ruthenian Church to alter as she pleases. It is the property of the entire Byzantine Church. The liturgicon on the holy table in a Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in the United States should be identical to one found in a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, a Ukrainian Catholic or Orthodox Church, a parish in Kiev, Moscow, Athens or at the cathedral in Constantinople (allowing for difference in languages and the small national variances noted above).

I disagree with Father David�s opinion that the needs of our Ruthenian Church are pastoral while those affecting relations with the other Churches of Byzantium are political. I do not think that the two can be separated. The pastoral needs of our own Ruthenian Church and those of the entire Byzantine Church � both Catholic and Orthodox � should be equal in our eyes. Even if one were to accept such a hypothesis Father David has not yet proven his contention that the revisions to the Liturgy are pastoral, let alone necessary. The hypothesis needs to be put forth theologically and then vetted by liturgical theologians throughout the Byzantine Church. This has not yet happened.

Father David writes that:
"I have not questioned that what the Administrator means the traditional Liturgy is basically the text of the Ruthenian Recension prepared by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches in the early 40's of the last century."
From discussing the matter with the Administrator, the two are clearly agreed on this point.
To respond to Father David's nuance of this, the 1941 edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom promulgated by Rome is not and has never purported to be THE normative text for the entire world of Byzantine Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy - the brief was more limited, to apply to those local Churches which had asked the Holy See to undertake the work in question and to everyone else who might be using what the Holy See termed the "Ruthenian Recension" ("Ruthenian" is a difficult term and I shall not attempt to define it with precision this morning).
Not that the 1941 edition is beyond criticism; that would be far from true. But it represents a massive improvement over what it was supposed to replace (L'viv 1905 and degenerate forms of L'viv 1905) and it does have an official character greater than any one eparchy or Metropolitanate is capable of bestowing.
There is less contention now than there would have been in the nineteen-forties had the sponge and zeon been imposed and the Filioque suppressed immediately. There is still some resistance, no doubt, but the situation has moved along.
The 1905 L'viv Sluzhebnik is not totally useless for purposes of research - buried under the mountain of rubbish one can find some points of interest and even a very few matters in which the 1941 edition made things worse instead of better. But that is not this morning's discussion. HOWEVER - the centenary of 1905 is only a year off, so it will be appropriate to have some careful studies on that book from a variety of angles.
Apart from any number of small points (which are always with us!) there is no difficulty in agreeing with Father David "that the traditional Liturgy, as defined above, is celebrated in all branches of the Byzantine Church, but with minor variations in various national groups."
It is impossible to agree or disagree with Father David's assertion "that the Liturgy as proposed by the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission does follow the traditional form, and that the modifications are minor", because that text seems to be unavailable for discussion. This ongoing embargo contributes to the suspicion that something untoward is going on.
I just opened the 1941 edition almost at random, and had no difficulty finding places where the book calls for such-and-such a prayer to be "taino", which certainly sounds to me as though it is not to be read in a voice fully audible to the assembly. However, it is correct that this word does not occur with reference to the Anaphora, so that it is at least possible to argue that there is lee-way on the specific question of the offering of the Anaphora quietly or out loud.
Any Local Church has not only the right but the obligation to act according to the pastoral needs of her faithful - but that right must be held in balance with other considerations as well. The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia might feel strongly that there is a need for another eparchy in, say, Minneapolis, but she cannot simply erect such an eparchy and consecrate a bishop for it without reference to others.
There is also a great deal of "historical baggage" with regard to the liturgical problematic, and there are legitimate questions to be raised and discussed regarding yet another set of serious deviations from the received liturgical tradition - particularly since the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia has not yet given a fair chance to the 1941 edition (as Father David himself has stated previously, it would be hard to find even 6 parishes where the full Liturgy is served according to that edition). So I would argue that before making what will be perceived as major changes, it would be no more than right to allow at least a couple of decades for the faithful to live with the traditional liturgy.
The assertion that "pastoral needs override political needs" is more a slogan than an argument. 'Political' in this context is a word than can mean anything or nothing.
Not so very many years ago, complaints about the failure to accept the 1941 edition and the remaining books in that series met with the rejoinder that "the purpose of the Church is to save souls". It may be quite unfair of me - in which case I apologize - but Father David's appeal to justify yet another set of departures from the traditional liturgy on the ground of pastoral need and the goal of bringing people into union with God (the traditional liturgy does not block either of these considerations, just as the traditional liturgy does not impede the saving of souls) seems reminiscent of that sort of expression.
Only a day or so ago Father David seemed offended at what he perceived as an implication that there is no place in this discussion for intellectuals and people who have a serious scientific education. This morning I am perceiving his appeal to "seeing the mind of God" as something similar. I hope that I am wrong; I hope that Father David does not believe that those of us who advocate the use - at long last! - of the 1941 edition are refusing obedience to the Will of God.
With renewed appreciation to Father David and in the hope that I have not been hopelessly offensive,
Incognitus

Fr. David said, I need food and water. My wife needs a shot of heparin every night. I need to go to work every day to pay my bills. I need to go to confession. I need to go to Divine Liturgy. There are even times when, to answer a particular need in a very difficult situation, a liturgy may be said that is not entirely within the rules to answer a pastoral need. For instance, in the case of an emergency baptism.

Fr. David, to what change brought on by what pastoral need are you referring?

Sharon said, Sharon, I certainly hope this isn't the "pastoral need" being discussed. I have to assume that it is something of much greater import.

I don't know either, but it's been my impression that the desire to keep things short has driven some decisions.

I am also given to understand that not all members of the Liturgical Commission believe brevity is a virtue of paramount importance.


Sharon

Sharon,

Don't get me wrong. The most wonderful 1-1 1/4 hour(s) of my week is at Divine Liturgy. I thank God every day that He brought us to the BC Church. Father Loya when asked how long Divine Liturgy lasts answers, "until it's over." Nevertheless, we do cut corners. I'm still too ignorant to tell you in every case precisely where, but we do. Many of the prayers are shortened. Some of the prayers are not sung. Father's sermons are wonderful but I think too short. I'd love to participate in the processions but the laity do not. I doubt that we do anything much differently than most other BC parishes, but I do think we abbreviate because Father may think we can't or won't receive a complete liturgy.

It may just be an impression. But I would enjoy a fuller liturgy though as I said, it's all wonderful. Whether it's longer or shorter or stays the same, I'm home and I'm forever grateful for it.

Dan Lauffer