www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Keep Writing Letters!

I discussed the RDL with Archbishop Job of the OCA a few months back when I first met him.

He was very sincere as we talked, but at the same time he said "Change can be good, but that is not a change for the good."

His grace wears his Chotki through the whole Liturgy, and really seems to care for his flock. His sermons almost bring me to tears! The Greek Catholic bishops should have a meeting with this man!

Once again, we may observe an important truth: loyalty begins from the top down. We love God because God loved us first. If a priest wants his people to love him, he must begin by loving his people (take it from one who knows!). If a bishop does not care about his people, or even holds them in contempt, the people will not be slow to catch on.

Check and see how Our Lord Jesus Christ describes the Good Shepherd.

It's often hard - but nobody ever said that being a bishop is supposed to be easy.

Bishop Nicholas Elko may have been off the beam in many ways, but he full understood the need to love his people and care about them. He did not begrudge the time to meet his people, one by one, and to give the impression that they were his principal concern.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen had the same talent - he really seemed to care. The difference, however, was that Archbishop Sheen employed good-sized staff of employees to keep the people from "pestering" him, while Bishop Nicholas would take the time to speak with people personally. In many ways, Bishop Nicholas was a disaster - but he knew how to make himself loved.

Or to go to the other end of the spectrum, so to speak, Congressman Vito Marcantonio of New York City was either a Communist or just wasn't paying his party dues, and was elected to Congress over and over again. He was often asked how he managed it, and answered that the secret of success in such work is never to forget that when they count the votes, they count them one by one by one by one by one . . . you get the idea.

Another aspect of the same principle: I have a friend who is one of the younger bishops in Ukraine. Right after his consecration, he asked a hierarch from Canada for whatever advice the older hierarch might have for him. This was the answer: "BE WITH YOUR PRIESTS, AT ANY COST! Let your priests know that you are there for them. If they have a retreat, be with them; if they have a meeting of some kind, be there; if they have a celebration, be with them. If you are simply driving through a town or village, take the time to stop and visit the priest for a bit. If this seems like too much trouble, remember that a bishop without priests will have nothing but trouble, but a bishop with loyal priests will have little to worry about!" Excellent advice.

Fr. Serge

Slava Isusu Christu! Slava na Viki!

Boy, that's a tough post to read. I hope the bit of information you heard is not true. I'm sure everyone else would agree--that would be a terrible thing. A real breach of the trust given by God to the Bishops. Please let it not be true.

The problem is that--it's possible. It would not be the first time. Does anyone really think Bishop Ireland cared if Father Toth took his "hunkies" and left his diocese? His opinion was "Good riddance!"

The reality is that time and time again the same concept has been proven to happen: those in charge don't seem to care about people. They have a different perspective. I see it at my work on a daily basis--there's no money for new computers or more staff---but the lobby of our building was remodeled with imported Travertine marble from Italy. A three floor lobby, including the steps of the stairways. Then they added hand made oak handrails and more. A conference room that had been remodeled a few years ago was remodeled again--with hand rubbed cherry bookshelves and a custome made soap stone sink. Why? Because they could. Does it help one student get a job? Is any potential employer going to say "Hey! We have to hire this student, their buiding has imported Travertine marble and hand made oak handrails!" Of course not. But it sure made the people in charge look good, since it's so impressive to visitors and alum. It makes them look successful.

There are examples after examples--car manufacturers who KNOW there is a problem with their cars--but the insurance accountants figure that it would cost more to solve the problem than it would to pay out in lawsuits. The same thing has been accused with the airline industry--the FAA requirements for constrcuting the seats is not strong enough to sustain a fairly small crash. But it's a numbers game. How many flights are there a day in the U-S? How many planes crash? Hey, it's cheaper to be sued than fix all the seats.

Are the Bishops doing the same thing? Figuring it will drive away the older people in particular in the smaller parishes so they can close the churches or merge the parishes and therefore save money? Please don't let it be so. Please Lord, do not let it be so. The problem is, it's just all too possible.

Tim

While we cannot judge the hearts of our bishops, one cannot escape the impression that the sentiments and intelligence of our Byzantine faithful and clergy have been only slightly regarded by the same hierarchs. Having spoken to priests of all eparchies of the Metropolia, I personally have concluded that the thoughts and feelings of the clergy have been, in fact, largely dismissed. I also personally know of a group of faithful who expressed their sentiments regarding the revised liturgy and who decided they could not support it. Their "mission" was dissolved, but this fact caused no great concern to those in authority, rather the members of this community were basically dismissed as uncooperative, divisive, ignorant, and not worth the trouble anyway. The same has happened not only to this group, but also to various individuals.

In his message to the Roman Catholic Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI notes that in the course of history, when various divisions arose, those responsible for preserving the unity of faith and charity in the Church, often did little to bring about reconciliation. <<Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church�s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: 'Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return � widen your hearts also!' (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."
Letter Introducing the Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontifucum, July 7, 2007.

My experience shows that they knew this would be the case and unfortunately really don't care...however, I know not all of the seminary professors agree with some of the changes...but they don't have much to lose since they are not in front of the same community of laity each week...even though they may fill in at parishes on weekends...

I think the statements Fr. Tom Loya has made on this forum regarding the church rising out of the ashes like a phoenix is very telling especially when one follows the history and sees a close association over the years with his grace Andrew and Fr. Petras...deny it all they want but there are definitely connections...for those who "connect the dots" it's clear as day...not so for those who don't want to see the dots...

Chris

This Forum has a particular agenda also. To be honest, I should not post here. I do not belong to this social circle. I post only because another perspective to the Restored Divine Liturgy should be considered by the readers. The goal of the Liturgy is indeed to bring the people into a greater participation in the Liturgy. Certainly, that participation will be greater if they understand the prayers to which they say �Amen.� The restoration of these prayers makes us more aware of the Divine Liturgy as truly �divine,� as springing forth from our Lord�s command to �do this (he prayed at the Last Supper) in remembrance of me.� It awakens in us a greater sense of his sacrifice on the Cross and his resurrection to flood us with new life. Will this make a difference? How open are we to this message, how open are we to the words of the Anaphora, �You so loved your world that you gave your only-begotten Son so that everyone who believes in him should not perish, but have life everlasting?� How open are we to receiving the Holy Spirit for �the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, and confidence in you, not judgment or condemnation?.� Will the people �tune out� these words, why then do they not �tune out� �Lord, have mercy,� repeated many times, over and over again in every Liturgy? To claim that the prayers interrupt the flow of the Liturgy is simply because we have become accustomed to a particular format, while the Divine Liturgy, which is especially �divine� in the prayers that the priest says because of his ordination in the Holy Spirit, is a symphony of prayer, of petition and of doxology. The participation of the people is not reduced one whit by the prayers of the priest. Or maybe we don�t need priests anymore? The deacon can pray for our needs and give the homily, and the congregation can sing hymns of praise.

Nor are the presbyteral prayers for �educational purposes.� Not every prayerful proclamation is educational. Is the Creed �educational� and useless also, is the Our Father �educational,� is the Ambon Prayer, which has always been said aloud �educational?� The fact is that the Anaphora was said aloud when catechumens were dismissed from the Church, so that they could not hear the prayer until they were baptized.

John (Administrator) goes on the offensive:
[quote] �The whole idea of revising the liturgical tradition by a select committee is entirely foreign to Eastern Liturgy. This committee�s reform is a latinization on a much deeper and more profound level then simply erecting Stations of the Cross or putting a Sacred Heart statue in our churches. This reform strikes at the very soul of Eastern worship.� [End quote]
Obviously - and I repeat, �obviously� - the 1941 translation and the 2007 translation were both done by committee. John claims that this is the latinization - that it was done by a committee in the Western style, which is not the way of the East. But the 1941 translation was done by committee - a committee, by the way, dominated by Fr. Cyril Korolevsky - a committee set up by the Oriental Congregation, because the Ruthenian Church was divided in itself. A committee that did not consult the faithful - has anyone here ever noticed that all liturgical reform is done by bishops with the assistance of their priests, even if we don�t always call it a �committee.� The �Divine� Liturgy is �divine� because it is the work of the Holy Spirit, and priests and bishops are ordained specifically to care for the celebration of the Liturgy. Of course, the faithful have a role - they say �Amen� to the prayers. For a history of reform, read Thomas Pott�s �La r�forme liturgique byzantine,� which should be out in English soon. The 1941 �recension� was not something that had been celebrated before - it�s value was that it cleansed the Liturgy of latinizations. However, it was obviously - and I repeat again, �obviously� - done according to Roman law. The 2007 translation was done by a committee of experts - despite hyperbolic protests by Forum members, I did not have the same dominance that Cyril Korolevsky had over his group - it was approved by the same Oriental Congregation as being in the tradition, and it has produced, just as the 1941 text, a Liturgy that is not - and I repeat, �not� - latinized, despite John�s uninformed and subjective opinion. If the 1941 recension Latinization,� then neither is the 2007 translation, and if the2007 translation is a �latinization,� then so is the 1941 recension. Despite this, we did have the concerns of the faithful in mind and a program of catechesis and education was planned from the beginning. Whether there should have been more consultation or whether the program was the best that could have been set up is open to discussion, but I think the Forum - because of a particular agenda - has inflamed the process.

To this John will respond:
[quote] �Yes, the official books were prepared by a committee. That committee sought to prepare books that were authentic, preserving the Ruthenian liturgical recension. It did not seek to reform the recension according to already abandoned Western models (as did the current committee).� [end quote]

Please note that that committee did not preserve a Liturgy that was already in existence - it produced a Liturgy that was free of �latinization.� It contained traditional Ruthenian elements, but also Russian elements where the original Ruthenian traditions no longer existed. Korolevsky explicitly acknowledged that. Nonetheless, I hold that it was a masterful work, and I am quite familiar with the true spiritual dimensions of this Liturgy, as it informed my seminary years in Rome. I would likewise hold that the 2007 translation is also in conformity with Ruthenian tradition, a tradition for our time and place, sixty years later. On this issue, I know that John and I profoundly disagree, but I think John�s position is not the best pastoral response to the needs of the people today - to our search for Christ�s activity among us today.

It is interesting that John argues from a Roman theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger - before he became Pope - against the recitation of the presbyteral prayers. Cardinal Ratzinger was arguing, of course, for the pre-Vatican Latin practice. Our Liturgy does not - with the notable exception of the Great Entrance in the Presanctified Divine Liturgy - argue for �silence.� We are so uncomfortable with �silence� that cantors will continue to sing even if they means they don�t go to Communion or delay Communion to after the Liturgy!!!! Nor can one argue from the Syriac tradition (the Semitic tradition as opposed to the Greek), because the structure of the Syriac Anaphora is different and contains sections (strophes) meant for quiet recitation between the public parts. And then John accuses us of �latinization�!!!!

Most unfair is to simply dismiss the Restored Divine Liturgy as irrelevant because it comes from a 70's or 80's mentality. Why not dismiss the 1941 recension because it comes from a 1930's pre-ecumenical mentality? Why not dismiss the Vatican II Council because it comes from a 1960's memtality? (Actually, I suspect some on this Forum would wish to do so - bringing up, for me, the question of how do we know when the Spirit is leading the Church? I believe, with my whole heart and soul that the Spirit was leading us through the Council, and that we neglect it to our peril.) The Restored Divine Liturgy does not come from a 70's and 80's mentality - which for our Church was �Latinized-minimalistic� - but even so not everything that comes from the 70's or 80's - or from the 40's or 60's - is wrong simply because of its timing. This argument is one of the weakest that John has mustered.

Father David,

Can you please explain why a church as small as the Ruthenian BCC felt the need to revise the liturgy and music people have known and loved for years?

Can you explain why Slavonic is entirely omitted from the new books?

Can you explain why as Father Serge explained in another post that when the OCA, formerly known as the Metropolia, approached Pittsburgh/Passaic to work on a mutual translation, the BCC said get lost?

Can you explain why myself and many others have left or are considering leaving for the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there a fear of being too distant from the Latin church in the BCC?

Can you please explain the need for inclusive language? Your last post didn't touch on this, and we all know this is the hot issue.

And finally can you explain why my 76 year old father who is a cradle Greek Catholic,(I use that term because that's what the BCC was called when he was born), is losing interest in his church because he can't stand the new music, and likes to hear the Otce Nas in the melody he grew up with in my OCA parish?

I think these are the questions that most forum members really want the answers to. Just a simple explanation for some dumbfounded faithful.

This is not accurate - one could say that no rescension had been celebrated before exactly like that until that particular text has been used.

Bishop Vasyl Velychkovsky of blessed memory recounts serving amongst his faithful in Volynia and even mentions the opening and closing of the doors, curtain, etc. well before the books from Rome were in anyone's hands. And there are other accounts. While this may not have been widespread, to say it had not been celebrated before is an exagerration. The Studites and others were serving a Liturgy much more like the 1941 or the Synodal books than what is now present in the RDL, and Metropolitan Andrew generally blessed anyone who wanted to take a fuller rescension of the Liturgy.

I would posit that "latinizations" can take the form of direction or intent as much as this or that particular practice. The imposition of a "sole text" which contains mandated abbreviations not ever codified or mandated as such within the tradition, and codifies potentially objectionable language perhaps may not be so far apart from what has happened and is in the process of being reversed in the Latin Church. And the last time any church of the Byzantine tradition attempted to implement an enforced "sole text" I believe was Patriarch Nikon, and we all know what became of that.

Getting back to the Anaphora, I believe the High Priest in the temple offered his oblation in silence, and it did not seem to inhibit the Jews from "understanding" what was transpiring behind the curtain. On his way to Calvary our Lord did not punctuate the Passion with instructional or educational prefaces. To recognize or dwell in mystery does not always necessitate the audible word; in fact the Mystery often dwells in the silence, in the gentle breeze.
FDRLB

Are you saying that the priests are now more necessary and appreciated because they take these prayers aloud?
I would please ask that you not resort to ad hominem attacks.
Wrong. The discussion should have taken place before it was forced on the people and the clergy. This forum provides a much needed avenue for those who have been injured by what they perceive as many errors and a modernist mindset. But alas, those who have been deeply scandalized will leave (such as myself and family)--some who are deeply injured will remain out of obedience but injured nonetheless---others will remain because they mostly agree with the reformers--and the rest will remain out of apathy.
The tradition does not need a modernist update. The tradition is timeless.
I would vehemently disagree. I think John's response is a voice to be heard--a voice that speaks for those who have been deeply injured by this reformation. A voice for today!
It is not unfair to question this. When I read in 1999 that the Hierarchs asked for a translation to be "adapted to modern times" and then I see a reformed Liturgy littered with inclusive language, the agenda becomes apparent.

Neglect what? The Holy Spirit? I pray that no one neglects the calling of the Holy Spirit. However, many do not believe in the reformation of our beloved Liturgy. Do you dismiss those who have been injured as purely subjective and uninformed?
Agreed. Not everything from this reformation was borne of a 70's and 80's mentality. But the inclusive language surely was .

Keep writing letters everyone!!!

&#65279;
Does the Ruthenian Recension in fact come from such a narrow perspective, a "1930's pre-ecumenical mentality"? It has been my understanding, based to a significant extent on the instruction I received, that it was the product of solid scholarship that did not depart from its mandate to restore the liturgy of the "Ruthenian" people, while also not being just an academic pursuit or an exercise in liturgical archeology. Am I misinformed; did Tisserant and Korolevsky �pull a fast one� on us?

I read Tisserant�s letter introducing the Recension books in which he states:


I read his letter with this quote, I look at the Slavonic of the Recension, I read the preface* to the 1965 liturgicon and compare its text to the Slavonic liturgy of the Recension, I read the additional instructions in the �Ordo� and I see coherence, �that the text and the rubrics be respected integrally.�

I do the same for the 2007 liturgicon, and while I do not dispute its authority, I am bewildered.

We are faithful sheep, we want to follow, we want to obey; but we are, properly, �rational sheep� who have a right to know, to be informed, to ask questions, to have them answered, and then to be a responsible �order� of the Church and complete the cycle of �handing on� by the necessary aspect of reception as is proper to the sensus fidelium.

Dn. Anthony

* See Present status of the Ruthenian Recension

Dear Father Deacon,

One difference would likely be that the preface in 1965 was expected to be IGNORED by the clergy, who were to celebrate according to the old rubrics and customs. This set up a situation where the books were EXPECTED not to be followed - and we are living with the resulting issues to the present day. Why should a priest follow the book if he's been expected NOT to follow the SAME book for his entire career?

One advantage of the current situation is that it may lead to a situation where bishops promulgate materials and expect them to be followed. It might have been even better had the official books been promulgated - but what is the likelihood that, having been told to ignore the same books for years, they would actually have been used? Especially if they significantly lengthened the services, and added a wide variety of elements the faithful were not used to? Preparation for such a promulgation (which would have had an even higher impact for most parishes) would have had to have started years in advance. This is the catechesis that those who desire the implementation of the full Ruthenian Recension need to be working toward NOW - and not just on this list.

There is plenty that could be done at a parish level - starting with the celebration of Vespers on Saturday night, and the elimination of pre-cut particles in favor of real prosphora. Either is a possibility for any parish - IF the priest and people can be convinced of their value.

We are living with the consequences of decades of decision making (or failure to make decisions) at the episcopal and parish level.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Ajk asks:
�Does the Ruthenian Recension in fact come from such a narrow perspective, a "1930's pre-ecumenical mentality"? It has been my understanding, based to a significant extent on the instruction I received, that it was the product of solid scholarship that did not depart from its mandate to restore the liturgy of the "Ruthenian" people, while also not being just an academic pursuit or an exercise in liturgical archeology. Am I misinformed; did Tisserant and Korolevsky �pull a fast one� on us?�

A valid question ,and it also illustrates the problem of the Internet, as I see it, that nuances and intentions are often disguised by the bare written word. I don�t think Tisserant or Korolevsky were attempting to �pull a fast one.� They perhaps didn�t even think of it, but they were working in a pre-ecumenical atmosphere. They, and Metropolitan Andrew, thought that a pure recension, free of all latinizations, would go a long way in �converting� the Orthodox to Catholicity. We don�t think that way anymore.

This also leads to a nuance of what I said about the Korolevsky recension. Certainly it was not something entirely new - but what I meant was in that form it was something that had not been celebrated before - just as the 2007 translation does not add anything new (some would say it subtracts too much), but it is certainly from pre-existing sources.

Recluse observes:
�Originally Posted By: Father David �despite John�s uninformed and subjective opinion.�
I would please ask that you not resort to ad hominem attacks.�

I apologize, but no �ad hominem� was intended. I do think, in this matter, that the opinion itself, no offense to the person, needs more information, and is based only on his personal ideas.

Diak writes:
�Getting back to the Anaphora, I believe the High Priest in the temple offered his oblation in silence, and it did not seem to inhibit the Jews from "understanding" what was transpiring behind the curtain. On his way to Calvary our Lord did not punctuate the Passion with instructional or educational prefaces. To recognize or dwell in mystery does not always necessitate the audible word; in fact the Mystery often dwells in the silence, in the gentle breeze.�

Of course, I have to agree with the last sentence, which comes from a very mystical and romantic mentality - which is not to be discounted. In the case of the Anaphora, what that should mean is that the priest prays - then we meditate in silence on what he has prayed - and then say �Amen.� This is, in fact, the way the ancient monks did prayers - but I think it would not go over in our churches now, as I�ve mentioned, periods of silence are taboo. In regard to the other sentences, please note that the Christian Liturgy has replaced the sacrifices of the Jewish temple - the early Christians were sensitively aware of this. Secondly, to do what our Lord commanded is to pray. The Anaphora is an �unbloody sacrifice,� �a sacrifice of praise.� It was given to us in the Supper and not on the road to the Cross, though, of course, the supper pointed toward the Cross - and to the Resurrection.

A little teaching goes a long way.

Fr. David,

Not that my 2 cents means much...But I think you should be thanked...you are the only Priest from the commission who apparently believes enough in the RDL to stand by it and fight for what you believe...it's unfortunate that you are on the "firing line" all by yourself...but you should be commended for standing your ground...

Chris

As a deacon who serves in the Constantinopolitan tradition I am also sensitively aware of this. At the same time I recognize the liturgical heritage of my church, and to divorce the ontological Jewish roots of worship is nonsensical (and not only in the "sacrifice", but in other areas such as Vespers/Shabat, etc.). Nor would I ever disassociate the "unbloody sacrifice" from the essential notion of sacrifice.

The Anaphora was not given to us without the Cross, Tomb, and Resurrection - when, and only then, could we "understand" the fuller implications of the Supper The Sacrifice was indeed a full sacrifice, the Cross, the Tomb and the Resurrection and not simply the meal itself, which as you say pointed towards fulfillment and of which at least on that statement I agree.

The reduction to a memorial meal, a reduction of the real nature of sacrifice and the emphasis on the Supper at the exclusion of the remainder and entirety of the Paschal Mystery I would posit were philosophical starting points for the Protestant sacramental approach. I don't think mystagogically the early Christians understood anything other than the organic whole of the Paschal Mystery related to the Sacrifice - and were also well acquainted with the style and spirit of temple worship, and certainly "understood" that the nature of sacrifice was still very real, and was made real by Christ, while also realizing that the sacrifice of the Temple had been fulfilled with the sacrifice of our Lord - of which every Christian could now partake in a mystical but very real way.

While I am not opposed to silent presbyteral prayers, I am opposed to enforced presbyteral prayers taken aloud in their entirety by mandate, which is most definitely not in the tradition (I have yet to see such a mandate or directive in the literature). The variation of custom in this regard is fairly well documented.

And silent presbyteral prayers "go over" in plenty of churches today. I don't need to hear someone tell me it is sunset after the sun has obviously gone down. Our Lord's prayer in the desert and in the Garden were heard by no one save the Father.