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

Fr David,

you wrote:
Just when you thought you had the Greeks figured out, the Orthodox Church of Greece does the following as reported on the official website:

The Divine Liturgy in English every Sunday in Athens [ecclesia.gr]

I guess there was not too much struggle in Greece to translate the Divine Liturgy into modern English. Or is the new struggle yet to come in Greece?

Fr. David,

I, for one, am not arguing for 'the rubrical "textus receptus" that cannot be changed.' I'm not sure anyone is. I think the question is, when should changes be considered? How can we know what "needs" will and will not be met by the received texts if they have never been used?

I'm still unclear as to what you consider to be the unsatisfied "needs" of the people, how these needs were identified, and how changes to the received texts will meet them. If using the liturgy as received causes no harm and no foul, why change it? It it ain't broke . . .

Dave,

Yes, the Romanians are of the Byzantine-Greek Tradition [/qb][/quote]

Many years,

Neil

Incognitus,

Actually, I've always ben impressed by the soft but firm touch with which you wield your words. What has caught my eye is the length of your few most recent posts; ordinarily yours are a model of brevity. It's a bit surprising to see you this verbose :p (don't take that word in any other than its plain meaning; no negative connotation was intended.)

Many years,

Neil

A Niall, a chara dhil,
Unfortunately there are two considerations which have propelled me to verbosity: trying to respond to a number of points in one post inevitably takes a lot of words - and so does the effort to avoid stepping on someone else's toes (which necessitates frequent disclaimers of any malign intentions). Meanwhile, thanks for the compliments!
Beannachatai
Incognitus

Dear Father Deacon John,

Regarding Greece and the Divine Liturgy being translated into English, and the new weekly services offering it in Athens, I don't quite get what you are alluding to?

The weekly services in English are for the English speaking community in Athens.

As for the translation, I would presume (although I may be incorrect) that they took the translation which the Greek Orthodox church has been using for years in the U.S.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Bless, Father David,

What a fascinating thread!

Do people in your parish put up as much fuss about the "out loud" thingy as they do here?

You Ruthenians must be very democratic!

In the Ukrainian Church, what the pastor says - goes.

That's why we sometimes have difficulty with the idea of papal primacy.

We already have too many little popes around . . .

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

I thank Father David for his post.

I disagree with Father David�s conclusion that the overriding principle I hold is that we must have the traditional Liturgy and that it may never change. I have never argued these points. I have apparently not made my points clearly and apologize for my lack of clarity.

To restate briefly, I believe that, with regard to changes in the Liturgy:

1) The traditional Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension should be our standard.

2) Any proposed changes to this standard must be accomplished in concert with the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

Regarding the specific changes that Father David is arguing must be mandated, I have presented the following questions (which Father David has not yet really answered):

1) Why does he believe that the specific revisions he proposes are pastoral?

2) Why does a revision to the Liturgy need to be mandated? These proposals are clearly very controversial within the rest of the Byzantine Church. Byzantines have a history of allowing the Spirit to lead and then to document the changes a century later. Why must we now remove the freedom of the individual priest to celebrate the traditional Liturgy by mandating revisions that no other Byzantine Church is even considering mandating?

3) Why is the traditional Liturgy so unpastoral that our Church must mandate change that is not in concert with the rest of the Byzantine Church? Why specifically is it wrong to wait upon the Spirit to lead the rest of the Byzantine Church along the lines that Father David has proposed?

4) What specific harm will come to the Ruthenian Church if the standard of the traditional Liturgy is not changed?

Dear Administrator,

The old Alex who used to be on this forum sends his best, but he won't be coming back here - good riddance I say!

I see you saying that our Churches should not try to develop their liturgical heritage differently from the general Byzantine heritage of the EC and Orthodox traditions from which we are descended and to which we are intimately linked.

The Ukie Church has an additional problem when its bishops, such as in Canada, allow for shortened liturgies under CERTAIN circumstances - and then this becomes the liturgical norm across the board for the majority of parishes.

So when some Byzantine Catholic Churches struggle with maintaining its traditional Orthodox identity, both in themselves and in relation to their Mother Orthodox Churches - which is how I read your perspective - we are forever trying to make that identity "contemporary" by making it adhere to the standard of "shorter this and fewer those."

How do you feel Father David's perspective could be interpreted along these lines?

What is to be gained by it - what is to be lost?

Forgive me, but I find this fascinating and yet am trying to understand it in terms that are most familiar to me in my particular church situation.

Alex

In reference to Fr. Deacon Lance's statement that the OCA is 50/50 on reading the Anaphora aloud, and in reply to the Administrator's statements quoted above, I post the following statistics from the OCA. They are from a "Worship Survey" dated 4/23/91, contained in a binder of materials from the 11th All American Council in 1995.

If I come across more recent statistics, I will pass them along.

Dave

Hi Alice,

Fr David posted that the Greek Synod had disciplined bishops who celebrated in the vernacular (read modern Greek language). The official website for the Greek Church reports that the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in 3rd Century AD Greek, but "the (English) service's first aim is to look after the Greek capital's homegrown, English-speaking Orthodox community."

This is my point: if the Church of Greece has no problem with modern day English in the services, why is there a problem with having services in modern Greek? Why not look after the modern Greek-speaking Orthodox community as well? I speak and understand Spanish and English (and "Spanglish" ), but I would not understand the 3rd Century equivalents of any of those languages (which problably don't even exist).

Dave (Chtec),

Thank you for your post. As I have repeatedly stated, I support the freedom of the individual priest to take these prayers aloud if that is there desire because our liturgical tradition allows them to do so. My problem is that mandating priests to do this is contrary to our liturgical tradition and that any mandated revisions must come at the level of all the Byzantine Churches. The OCA allows individual priests the freedom of our liturgical tradition on these issues. We should do the same. If the trend is reflective of the work of the Spirit then it will occur naturally throughout the Byzantine Church and mandates will not be necessary.

Are you aware of any mandates or coming mandates in the OCA regarding liturgical revision?

Are you aware of a similar survey across Orthodoxy around the world (we should not forget that we Americans are not the only Orthodox)?

Admin

Dave,

Thanks for that bit of information. I was always lead to believe that the 50/50 was because St. Tikhon's grads don't take them aloud but St. Vlad's do. Of course I don't know what percentage of OCA priests graduated from either. Since those statistics are from the 90's I will guess the percentage has increased as younger priests have started their ministry and older ones retired.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks, Dave, for posting this result of an OCA Worship Survey:

I did not realize that OCA priests had the liberty of deciding these things.

Am I correct in understanding that the Revised Liturgy only contains the Great Litany? Does it contain the Litany of Thanksgiving? (The "Angel of Peace" Litany that my old parish used to take is the "Litany of Intercession before the Lord's Prayer.")

That's the problem - no one has come out and specifically, item by item, mentioned what the proposed liturgical changes are.

Dave/Chtec brings up another great point (as usual). The OCA for years has allowed "festal" chanting of the Anaphora aloud. But has not mandated that, but allowed economia to the priest. As I recall Fr. Alexander Schmemann actually did this on a few occasions at St. Vlad's back in his teaching days. Again, as I mentioned previously, the OCA has done a masterful job in appreciating "pastoral sensitivity" but also in preserving the integrity of the received liturgical tradition. Would that we take the example of the OCA more strongly and often.

Back to the development of the Ordo, I think Metropolitan Andrew, Fr. Cyril Korolevsky et al did not have in mind the concretization of the rite at all when developing the Ordo. Rather it was a first step to stem the tide of horrors from Zamosc (1720) and L'viv (1891). I think the hope and expectation of all involved was that the work would be taken up in the future and moved to the next level. But if we haven't made the first step (by ignoring the Ordo), how can we do that?