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

//What we agree on is that the Ruthenian traditions must be restored. What we disagree on is whether saying the anaphora aloud was a part of that tradition.//

And if it wasn't? What if the Ruthenian tradition had some oopsies in it? A married priesthood was once a part of our tradition ...

//What I don't understand is why the restoration of tradition hasn't been mandated by Pittsburgh. I think it has been mandated, oddly enough, by Rome.//

It takes leadership.

//What can individual parshioners do to restore traditions in their individual parishes?//

Just do it! The Romanian Byz. bishop in the U.S. didn't submit a permission slip to Rome to ordain several married men to the presbyterate the other year. He just did it.

Joe

If Joe is really my neighbor (in more than the Gospel sense!), might I inquire as to whether he likes or dislikes cats? The answer will tell me which doorbell on my street to ring, so that we may have a few beers and solve the problems of the world without the need of electronic aids.
Meanwhile, his observationt that "Basil continues, but if I quoted his Anaphora in full I would be going against the innovation of taking it silently. I should make our readers pick up a textbook or liturgikon and read if for themselves" is not without merit, though the obvious sarcasm is inappropriate. If we want the grown-ups in the congregation to appreciate the Anaphora of Saint Basil (and I have already said repeatedly that I am in favor of chanting that Anaphora in an audible fashion) it makes excellent sense to teach people to read the text themselves, meditate upon it and pray over it, before they even come to the Divine Liturgy. For that matter, it would be highly desirable to coerce the grown-ups in the congregation to engage in such an exercise using a copy of the Anaphora of Saint Basil with footnotes giving the Bible references - and instruction to the said grown-ups in the congregation to look up every such reference in the Bible and consider its significance in the context of Saint Basil's Anaphora. This obviously cannot and should not be done during the actual celebration of the Divine Liturgy - but why not teach people to do it, at least once a year? It would probably repay the time and effort abundantly.
Incognitus

It's pretty clear to me that the Administrator and I will continue to disagree on certain issues. I think we must simply "agree to disagree." One point I want to make: some of my opinions (I don't think the public recitation of the presbyteral prayers will be among them) may be corrected or modified by further discussion and by what he calls "being vetted by Byzantine theologians." I make no claims to infallibility, but, really, don't my statements have to be discussed on their merits now? What I am saying is that this might seems to belittle my opinions in the present. I do in fact discuss Liturgy with Orthodox theologians.
I'd like to make some further comments about being pastoral. While I have been trained academically, I have functioned as a pastor of souls for well over twenty years. I tried to make a distinction between "pastoral" and "political," and perhaps the word "political" was not well chosen. However, the attempts of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in Europe, in the earlier stages of its history, and particularly in the nineteenth century leading up to the Synod of Lviv and the later Sluzhebnik of Lviv, was, I believe driven by a "political" need to make the church look sufficiently "un-Orthodox" so as to justify its independent existence in the face of a Russian government that systematically disestablished Eastern Catholic Churches. This "political" impulse stil exists in our Church in Europe, as Fr. Elias witnessed to in one of his posts. I think that adapting the Liturgy for "political" reasons always leads to disaster. Here many will disagree with me, but the extreme rubrical conservatism of the Roman Church from Trent to Vatican II was somewhat political, the danger of compromise with the Protestants, and the extreme rubrical conservatism of the Russian Church may well be a reaction to the Old Believer schism. Certainly, Patriarch Nicon could not be called a "liturgical conservative" by any means, but the Liturgy he formed (possibly on false principles, see Paul Meyendorff's book, Russia, Ritual and Reform) has been the standard for Slavs ever since, including the Sacred Congregations "Roman Recension." What, then, is pastoral? Pastoral considerations have influenced the Byzantine Liturgy at many times - the antiphons, for example, when they filled their original function of processional hymns, were psalms sung with all their verses. When the processions disappeared, the pslams remained, but were shortened to three verses for "pastoral" reasons. I mention this only to illustrate that there are pastoral considerations, I am not arguing that we should further shorten the antiphons. For myself, I do not have problems with a longer Liturgy, that would be replete with hymns and litanies (contrary to a post long ago, last summer, I am not the enemy of litanies) and - yes - presbyteral prayers. Even some of the fathers said you have to pray for two hours to put yourself in God's presence. At the same time, I have served as pastor and I know that there can be pastoral problems. Would there be pastoral problems if we celebrated a two-hour Liturgy? I don't know and in this case may be a little more humble than some in the forum who seem quite certain, but in any case I am certainly not the only one who is making liturgical decisions. When our Church reintroduced infant Communion, I stronlgy supported and encouraged that practice - I considered it "pastoral," bringing children closer to God - even though I was accosted by some, both clergy and lay people, who said our Church would never accept the practice and people would leave in droves. ( The danger of "Leaving in droves" has been given as an excuse for many liturgical abberations.) However, there are pastoral considerations, and any Church has to take them seriously, and, I believe it is correct to say, we are obliged to do so, because we must respond to the salvation needs of our people. This needs further discussion, and I've tried to expand my earlier remarks here.

Fr. David

//If Joe is really my neighbor (in more than the Gospel sense!), might I inquire as to whether he likes or dislikes cats? The answer will tell me which doorbell on my street to ring, so that we may have a few beers and solve the problems of the world without the need of electronic aids.//

I am allergic to cats, but not beer. There MUST be a God!

Joe

I find the liturgical revision process something akin to Plato's Apology, in which Socrates expresses frustration for not being able to confront his accusers, "fighting against shadows".

I still don't really understand exactly what specifically is being proposed, if a draft text is available to consider, and when these changes will take effect.

If the point is to be more consistent and less divisive with the Orthodox, as I was under the impression was our direction from the universal church, won't more revision likely take us farther from that point ?

Last night just out of curiosity I put the 1988 UGCC English Liturgikon , which faithfully follows the rubrics of the Ordo Celebrationis (it even has the rubrics for distribution of antidoron and Psalm 33 before the final dismissal), side by side with the 1977 OCA last night and there is remarkable agreement in both content and rubrics between the two. Far more than the BCC Intereparchial of the 1960s.

The OCA has been in my opinion most excellent in balancing preservation of the tradition with pastoral sensitivity. This is especially remarkable when one considers the diversity of OCA parishes, containing Russian, Galician, Carpatho-Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc. communities.

Should we not take a similar approach and come up with an agreed English text for (a) churches who use the Greek liturgical tradition (Archbishop Raya already has this sown up for the Melkites) and (b) a standard text for Slavic usage liturgies, trying to minimize those differences with Orthodox practice as the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the CCEO exhorts us?

We always seem to be in this circular pattern of reinventing the wheel in our own little eparchial ghettos, which runs the gamut from varying and sometimes conflicting liturgical promulgations to preserving seminaries with a half dozen seminarians here, ten or twelve there, instead of combining resources for the greater good. And I know the Orthodox pick up on things like these butchered antiphons.

A befuddled subdeacon

Sorry to learn of Joe's allergy to cats - but he is more than welcome to the beer. We'd better enjoy the beer in his house rather than mine, since the cats which occasionally inhabit my humble home will sometimes shed hairs, which could trigger the allergy.
Incognitus

Dear Father David,
Everyone has his own personal history and background, which contribute to the context in which he thinks, speaks and writes. Certainly in my own experience, and almost certainly in the experience of many who are involved in the current discussion, that involves an unhappy awareness of the abuse of hierarchal authority (need not be a hierarch to abuse hierarchal authority or to confuse hierarchal authority with unwarranted force and coercion) and the abuse of language (I�m not referring to common vulgarisms or obscenities). Another aspect of this is the element of personalities � I have no idea at all of what your own previous experience of the Administrator may have been, nor is that any of my business, but I can�t help but notice that this seems to be a sensitive area.
You write that �some of my opinions (I don't think the public recitation of the presbyteral prayers will be among them) may be corrected or modified by further discussion and by what he calls "being vetted by Byzantine theologians." �. I would both hope and expect that your good self, and anyone else with your educational background, is always willing to modify his opinions on the basis of further discussion, particularly discussion with those who also enjoy the blessings of such an education. Likewise I would hope that we are all able to modify our opinions on the basis of experience. There is a difference, of course, between our opinions and Christian dogma: no matter who says what, I am not prepared to abandon my belief in the Most Holy Trinity! That example is deliberately extreme; nobody in the current discussion has suggested any such thing. Still, liturgy is a profound matter, reaching to the heart as well as the brain, and it is only too easy to say or write something which an interlocutor will find threatening or abusive. I freely confess that it is quite easy to trigger such a response from me � and your reservation about the matter of the audible offering of the hieratic prayers suggests that this is an area where your own personal commitment is strong (even though I have written repeatedly that I am not unalterably opposed to the audible chanting of those prayers there seems to be an assumption that unless I endorse the daily reading of those prayers aloud in the Divine Liturgy I must be opposed to the audible offering of those prayers entirely. The advocates of always reading the prayers aloud are unwilling to respond to what I thought was a nuanced expression on my part. I don�t know why it is so difficult to respond to that thought, but evidently it is).
You ask �don't my statements have to be discussed on their merits now?� Well of course they do! Who denies that your work, your affirmations, the evidence you put forward, and the opinions which you express should not all be discussed on their merits? I respect your education, your experience and your intelligence, and I am always ready to listen to you attentively and to read your materials with care and appreciation, seeking what I may learn and what insights I may gain. We all have our off days, and we all occasionally make mistakes � and there are many matters concerning which good men are apt to differ. But not every intellectual difference is a personal attack.
I was � and am � the critic who suggested that your use of the term �political� a day or so ago was too vague to enable me to offer an intelligent response. Now that you have given some specifics, perhaps I may try. You write that �the attempts of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in Europe, in the earlier stages of its history, and particularly in the nineteenth century leading up to the Synod of Lviv and the later Sluzhebnik of Lviv, was, I believe driven by a "political" need to make the church look sufficiently "un-Orthodox" so as to justify its independent existence in the face of a Russian government that systematically disestablished Eastern Catholic Churches.�
There is certainly truth to what you write. But I�m not so sure that it was the Russian government which was uppermost in the campaign to make the Church in Eastern Europe sufficiently �un-Orthodox�. It was more a case of trying to prove to the Latins (Poles and Hungarians in this instance) that the Greek-Catholic Church was �really Catholic�, using a flawed understanding of what �Catholic� might mean � and there was a strong element of �social climbing� involved (to understand this latter element, one can observe similar phenomena among communities where the matter of religion is either minor or absent totally � notice, for instance, the strong clash between integrationists and �nationalists� among African-Americans). One difference that may be underlying some of the disagreements on these topics has to do, not with whether we do or don�t take Orthodox or Latin studies into account, but which of those two worlds we react to (or �resonate with�) more closely.
The �Synod of L�viv� was a horror best consigned to oblivion; for our purposes we may thank Almighty God that the liturgical prescriptions put forward on that lamentable occasion did not obtain canonical ratification. (Shades of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate). However, the 1905 Sluzhebnik is, amazingly, a slight improvement on the nineteenth-century editions of the same line descending from the Sluzhebnik of Cyprian Zhokowsky; even in 1905 Metropolitan Andrew�s program of cautious liturgical recovery can be discerned. The 1905 missal is not satisfactory, but it must seen in its context. The upcoming centenary should provide us with occasions to do that. I would scream blue murder at any proposal to put that book into liturgical use, but it is not a volume without some interesting features.
You write that �I think that adapting the Liturgy for "political" reasons always leads to disaster.� I�m tempted to agree completely � but then again, one could easily term the 1941 edition �political�, in that Metropolitan Andrew, Cardinal Tisserant, and the commision of the Oriental Congregation which produced that edition were certainly working to an agenda that took several needs into account, including the wish to defend the Holy See against the charge of requiring the liturgical horrors which had provoked the request for a typical edition. Still, you and I will have no trouble agreeing that the edition of 1941 was and is a qualitative improvement over the edition of 1905.
You write that �the extreme rubrical conservatism of the Roman Church from Trent to Vatican II was somewhat political, the danger of compromise with the Protestants�. My only criticism is that this phenomenon went far beyond rubrics! The Roman Church was governed by the ecclesiastical equivalent of martial law during that period � and the recovery is by no means complete (Isaac Newton could and would explain the bizarre liturgical phenomena of the novus ordo as a response to extreme rubrical rigidity of the Tridentine Mass � and he would be right). Only yesterday, a much younger friend asked me � believing himself to be joking � whether, if one had arrived late for the Mass, one could fulfill one�s Sunday obligation by attending a second Mass up to the point at which one had arrived for the first Mass. As you and I can remember only too well, despite my friend�s humorous intentions, this was no joke; we were actually taught that one could and should do precisely that (as though the Mass were a cinema, where one might say �this is where I came in� and get up and leave mid-way through the film). That sort of thing perhaps helps to explain why I react so negatively to what I perceive as an excess of rigidity � what I called �liturgical lock-step� in a posting the other day.
You write that �the extreme rubrical conservatism of the Russian Church may well be a reaction to the Old Believer schism�. My only argument here is that it is manifestly unjust to blame the schism on the Old Ritualists. As Paul Meyendorff�s book, which you cite, demonstrates abundantly, Nicon imposed his reform as a sheer act of power, based on lies � AND, please note, on the castigation of the Old Ritualists as a bunch of hopelessly obscurantist immobilists, which they were not and are not. Still, your basic point is correct; the present-day liturgical immobilism and obscurantism that one can find in the Russian Church traces straight back to the tragedy of the seventeenth century. That is all the more reason not to act in such a way as to replicate that tragedy yet again.
About thirty years ago, another colleague who also does not lack for education said to me that Rome�s Ruthenian Recension Liturgicon offers what amounts to a Latinized Niconian Liturgy. At the time I was infuriated. But over the years, I have come to appreciate our colleague�s point. I confess my personal preference for the standard Niconian Liturgy. Intellectually, however, it is impossible to deny that the Niconian Liturgy was created badly (though after 350 years it has acquired some customary right) and that in 1941 a better job of restoring the Ruthenian Liturgy on the basis of her own sources could have been done � and, for that matter, could still be done, though I�m not sure that the times are propitious at the moment.
Nobody with any awareness of the history and development of Christian worship could sensibly deny that pastoral considerations have usually been a factor in that history and development. Your point regarding the Enarxis is well taken; that�s almost certainly where we got it from. Like so very many things in human history, though, the Enarxis has proved its �staying power� over many centuries. Attempting to get rid of it on the premise that the original pastoral reason for it has long since vanished would be utterly unpastoral (I hasten to add that nothing you have ever said or written gives cause to believe that you wish to erase the Enarxis from our Liturgy!).
Here�s a thought: would it be possible at major pilgrimage centers (Uniontown comes to mind at once) to restore the Enarxis? You understand what I mean: beginning at chapel A, processing to chapel B and chapel C, and then making the Little Entrance to whatever place is selected for the main part of the service? Weather permitting, it sounds as though it might be interesting. But that�s just a random thought at the moment.
Prescinding from such unavoidable considerations as the overworked priest who must serve even four times on one Sunday to meet the genuine needs of the people � even in four different locations � and therefore must insist on some concessions to his own human limitations, I�m inclined to regard the �issue� of the length of time of the service as something of a red herring. The quality of the service is far more important. But I won�t belabor the point (not this morning, at least).
I must have missed something (it happens frequently), but out of sheer curiosity I�d love to know why anybody would think that giving Holy Communion to infants and small children will cause people to leave our church in droves! People have departed for many reasons, but no one has ever given me that one as an excuse for going elsewhere.
Well, enough for one morning. Please accept my renewed assurance that I am not trying to be offensive. I also don�t claim infallibility (it would be nice, but I would never get away with it!). To the contrary, I�m convinced that an exchange of ideas with the evidence upon which to base the ideas can have worth-while results all round.
Incognitus

Incognitus,

That would sound good. Do you also like Pinot Noir and Merlot wines? Just wondering. I do like cats, especially our neighbors' cats that crawl around our property hunting.

Joe

Subdeacon Randolph wrote:

Actually, I think this is a great idea. What jurisdictions would be involved in such a project? Ukrainian, Ruthenian...would that include the Romanian Catholics (or do they follow the Greek liturgical tradition)?

Father David wrote:

Well, actually, I think we would have a pastoral problem with two hour liturgies. Having said that, however, I think our unscientific poll in Town Hall ("Abbreviated or Longer Liturgy") has shown that an overwhelming per cent of people here would prefer the option to have restored antiphons and take some more litanies (for an additional 15 or 20 minutes, depending on how much was restored.) Right now the poll has 90 per cent in favor of such an approach.

Could it not be a possibility that instead of limiting the Liturgy to the new Revised Liturgy text, parishes could in addition decide to take fuller antiphons and other litanies which would be omitted otherwise?

If so, what text would they take? Has the Liturgy Commission developed texts for those parishes which might take a longer Liturgy?

The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops tried such an approach about 10 years ago; they produced what is essentially one text, but in three versions - modified for Slav use, Greek use and Antiochian use. I have all three of them. Unfortunately, nothing further has been heard of that project for the past several years; I have no information as to why it seems to have died, or gone into suspended animation.
I'm having a new experience which you are all invited to share. A friend who read my two longer postings on this thread recently has said to me that I'm much too subtle! This criticism is not usually made of my stuff - I'm much more accustomed to being told to put away my sledge-hammer.
Well, the cats do indeed roam on to the neighboring gardens - cats are no great respecters of boundaries, I fear. As for wine, I'm no expert, though there are a few than I enjoy. There's hope - I like good champagne.
Incognitus

The rector of the pro-Cathedral of Saint Stephen's recently returned from a 10 day vacation in Greece. While there he had the opportunity to worship at the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Cathedral. Related to a few issues raised here, he commented that the Holy Doors were opened throughout the Liturgy. The deacon did not use the deacon doors but travelled through the opened Holy Doors. The priest (using a microphone) prayed the Anaphora aloud, even while the choir was still singing.

I again thank Father David for his posts. Yes, it is very possible that we will have to agree to disagree on some issues. That�s OK and perfectly normal.

I am sorry that Father David took offense at my comments regarding vetting his opinions. I know and respect Father David�s love and keen enthusiasm for our liturgy and am thankful that our Church can count such a gifted person as a member. I am glad that Father David has had discussions with other Byzantine theologians on these issues (I always took for granted that this was indeed the case). But such discussions are only a start. The proposed revisions need to be presented to all of the Byzantine Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) for theological review and comment. These theological analyses need to be published in the scholarly theological journals for discussion and more discussion. I hope that asking for this type of formal vetting by the other Byzantine Churches is not offensive to Father David. It does not diminish my respect for him but should only demonstrate my belief that our Church should act only with great care and deliberation with regard to liturgical reformation and do so only in concert with the other Byzantine Churches.

Regarding the discussion of what is �pastoral�, I admit that I become very concerned when anyone justifies change by considering it to be pastoral. There are many examples of liturgical revision in our history that were done by well-intentioned, God loving people who believed the changes they were making to be pastoral. In this current discussion, Father David�s main apology for his proposed liturgical revision has been that they are pastoral (I invite him to correct me if my analysis of his presentation is incorrect). Yet Father David has not actually provided us with a specific, developed argument demonstrating 1) why he believes that his proposed revisions to be pastoral, 2) why such revisions must be mandated (the traditional liturgicon, for example, already gives the individual priest the freedom to take the anaphora aloud or silently), 3) why the traditional liturgy is so unpastoral that we must mandate revisions and not wait for the Spirit to lead the rest of Byzantine Christianity along the same lines and 4) what great harm will come to the Ruthenian Church if the traditional liturgy remains the standard.

By the same token, it is prudent to be concerned over mistaking antiquarianism for authentic traditionalism; and either cancerous growth or stasis for healthy organic development.

Incognitus' long post was very interesting.
In regard to the history of the Ruthenian Liturgy, I think that the first impulses toward latinization were cultural. The Eastern Church had a very inferior view of itself, and imitated the superior Western culture (which had tecnology, world power and education/universities). This affected the Catholics very strongly, but also the Orthodox (witness Peter Moghila). This impulse weakened, but the political motive became stronger with the partition of Poland, and the disestablishment of the Eastern Catholic Church in territories controlled by Russia. This was specifically noted by Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX, and culminated in the 1905 Sluzhebnik, which attempted to create a Catholic identity. This Liturgicon dominated our Church until 1965 and beyond. Some priests still advocate it as the norm today. Of course, in history, it is impossible to re-create all the motivations at any one time, so the past can always be argued. This is how I see it from some of the documents available to us.
When I was young to get in a complete "Mass" you had to arrive before the Gospel and depart after Communion. You couldn't take congruent parts of two distinct liturgies.
I apologize for my comments on the "vetting of my remarks." The difficulty here is that I feel caught up in a number of "catch 22"'s. The over-riding principle seems to be that we must have the "traditional Liturgy." (I believe the new translation to be traditional - which is disciunted because we don't know what it is exactly, so let me say this - the Liturgy as published by Parma in 1987, with which the new translation will have much in common - is "traditional" in my definition, but probably not in the Administrators - so we can argue in eternal circles about this) must be celebrated until everybody agrees to do elsewise (is that a word?). Therefore, if I propose something concerning the liturgy, it may have some merit, but it is meaningless until it is "vetted" by Byzantine orthodox theologians world-wide. Two points - first of all, there is a massive scientific literature on the Byzantine Liturgy, starting with 19th century Russia, and in Greece, a little later, and from other centers of learning, such as the Pontifical Oriental Institute - but none of this is going to make particular recommendations about how the Liturgy is to be celebrated - because such an article or book would of necessity be pastoral. My question is - is there a Catch 22 in this. Namely, if an article proposes change, it must be discounted because it is not scholarly, but if it is scholarly, it will not propose change. Do you see the problem. Concretely - Trembelas' article about the Anaphora said aloud - it was certainly scholarly. Trembelas also clearly favored the recitation aloud. But the Administrator said his opinion was not accepted. I don't think it's that simple - I think his article (which I translated and it appeared in the Eastern Churches Journal) opened a modern discussion that is in the process of resolution - so that Trembelas' article was not rejected either. It is still important, which is why I translated it fifty years later. There have been developments - the Byzantine Liturgy is in the varnacular in this country, and nobody seems to dispute that - but there is a struggle now in Greece and Russia, the Greek Synod disciplined bishops who were saying the liturgy in the Greek vernacular, and the Russian Patriarch has refused permission to translate the Liturgy into Russian. I know he won't like it, and this point will be disputed, but I'm trying very hard not to be subjective and to be kind - by the strict application of the principle no change until all agree, we'd have to keep our Liturgy in Church Slavonic until Greece and Russia agree to the vernacular. One problem is that I want very much to retain the Byzantine tradition, but I disagree that this necessarily means an exact translation of the Slavonic "textus receptus" in every detail. The problem is that for some, this means that if we make any change, however minor, it opens a can of worms. Likewise, I believe our Church has the obligation to act pastorally for the needs of the people, that the Liturgy perform its function of bringing them into Communion with God, and I would hold that the best way is by the traditional Liturgy - but not necessarily the rubrical "textus receptus" that cannot be changed. Do you see why I consider at least some of this circular argumentation? Again, I'm sorry to have gone on for so long. A pastoral commentary on the Liturgy is the theme of my articles at present and it should go on for awhile. "Liturgical reform" is a different question. A scientific-historical study of this was written by Thomas Pott, "La reforme liturgique byzantine."

Fr. Dave