www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Just stumbled across this

In January 2007 Metropolitan Basil Schott, Archbishop of Pittsburgh promulgated a complete revision of the major Divine Liturgies (Chrysostom and Basil) of the Byzantine Catholic Church. These Revised Divine Liturgies now create for the first time formal liturgical distinctions between Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics and both other Byzantine Catholics (Ukrainian, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, and etc.) as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians. Formally they shared the same original Church Slavonic service books. With this promulgation Metropolitan Basil (Schott) has the distinction of being the first Catholic bishop to win Vatican approval for the use of so-called "inclusive language" in liturgical texts (better known as gender neutral language). The changes also imitate some of the changes made to the Roman Catholic Mass after Vatican II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Catholic_Metropolitan_Church_of_Pittsburgh

It would be interesting to know who wrote this. I've heard the claim that we are "imitating the Roman Catholics" - and the supposed links were pretty vague. Can someone who believes this list those places in which you think it has occured in the new liturgical books?

Jeff

To call the current Pittsburgh liturgical reform �Latin� is a bit too vague. It appears to me that it is, more accurately, a revision based upon many of the liturgical principles espoused by many of the 1970�s post-Vatican II Latins. That is most definitely a mindset that the Vatican is trying to change, as we can see with the current effort to undo some of the damage done in the Latin Church �in the spirit of Vatican II� with the recent Vatican directives for authenticity in Liturgy.

But to give a general response to the question, Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful. Liturgy is celebrated for God. It is meant to be pleasing to God. Catechesis at the Divine Liturgy comes not from hearing the prayers prayed but from participation in the Divine Light. This reform attempts to make the Liturgy more catechetical in nature which, however well-intended, in the end really only makes it all about man. Look at the example of the mandatory praying of many of the prayers aloud (for just one example). Supporters of the reform have posted that these prayers need to be prayed aloud for the people, thus taking the Liturgy and making it less about God and more about an instructive element for the people. That is not Byzantine. It�s really not good Latin liturgical theology, either. That is why the various attempts at this type of reform in Parma in the late 1980s and in Passaic about 10 years ago have never met with great acceptance from the clergy and faithful.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) hits this point very strongly in a speech from 1999:

Those demanding change are the ones who ought to defend the change. Perhaps someone who supports the change can present us with a listing of the specific rubrical and textual changes and explain how each one brings us closer to the official Ruthenian Liturgical Books or other Byzantine Liturgical Books (Orthodox and/or Catholic) in a way that the 1964 translation (the �Red Book�) did not? I'd like to hear why they believe Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is wrong and the reformers are right.

That Pope is one heavy thinker. Do any byzcath bishops teach as deeply? i like the point about how worship was for God, not onlookers. Boy! that really calls it like it is. why is the Pope saying one thing and this bishop Schott saying another? I take it that this bishop Schott is the one responsible for all this havoc? in this case, who are the onlookers for bishop Schott? and in what he is doing for God or for man? or "us?"
Eddie

Pace Cardinal Ratzinger, the Liturgy is not for the salvation of God, who has no need of our sacrifices, it is "for us and for our salvation," that Christ died on the Cross, and that we "commemorate" or "remember" this salvation in our worship. I think a false conclusion has been drawn from the Cardinal's meditation, that "Byzantine Liturgy is not designed for the faithful. Liturgy is not about the faithful." If this is true, the Liturgy is useless for both God and "men." John's approach would lead to a false obscurantism, in which the prayers designed to aid us to remember God's transcendent love for us are muffled. Of course, the Liturgy is meant for the faithful, so that the non-baptized and non-communicants were dismissed before the mystery.

Fr. David (bless),

I think you'd agree that Liturgy is for the people but should always be ABOUT God. If the Liturgy is focused on the people instead of on God, it becomes a therapy session or motivational speech in ritualized form.

It becomes a protestant worship service.

M.

I'd dare to say that even most protestant worship services are generally about God and not the people, except for the Unitarians and liberal wings of protestantism.

This may allow two different answers. Apart from the abridgement of the 2007 liturgicon relative to the 1965 ("Red Book"), the extent of rubrical changes differs depending on whether the standard is that the Ruthenian Recension is followed or "other Byzantine Liturgical Books (Orthodox and/or Catholic)" are followed. Many of the numerous rubrical departures of the 2007 RDL from the Ruthenian Recension / Ordo would probably not be picked up by the people; many can be traced to the Rome 1950 Greek liturgicon. Hence my question, "what is the present status of the recension books."

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/237147/page/1#Post237147

Let me recall here too that the 1965 liturgicon is a faithful and complete translation of the liturgy in the "1942 Ruthenian Recension." Yes, it can be improved, it is not perfect. I find it bewildering, however, that since 1965 we have had this complete and nicely done English version of the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy -- the holy grail in a sense of our liturgical renewal -- and I, and I dare say most, have never experienced it. And just like the comment about Christianity itself, it seems one can not say that it has failed because one can not say it has actually been tried.

Dn. Anthony

Posted by AJK:

Two parishes I know of in Ohio celebrate the Red Book and are very successful at it -- and it appears that no one is to know of their success. It's been told to me that, "we would lose half our people if the Red Book were enforced, because after all who would stay for an hour and ten minute Liturgy, especially the people in Pennsylvania."

Additionally, one priest from Europe told me the Red Book is near perfect, aside from a few changes that need to be made to the rubrics.

Why have we thrown out this translation? Why not 'fix' the music, but keep the translation?

Sad, sad, sad.

An hour and ten minutes?

You think thats tough? Us Syro-Malankarese and our Syriac and Malankara brethren sometimes "tough it out" three to four hours (not including Pesacha, Holy Friday, etc)

I note that a Wiki user, unidentified except by IP, has deleted all but the first sentence of the quoted wikipedia text with the notation "(Deleted unsupported, inflammatory remarks on the revised divine liturgy.)"

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

As you are probably aware, Wikipedia has been rocked by scandal and controversy as of late, including the removal of an editor when it was found that his credentials were bogus. Users can post material and at times it can be rather subjective. My guess is that the new editorial policy is tending to shy away from anything that can be controversial as far as new entries. Also, whoever posted the entry may not have had the proper credentials for the entry and it was removed by the editorial board.

Since their recent scandal, I tend to rely on them less and I take their entries with a grain of salt and check other sources.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

As a school librarian, I forbid my students to use Wikipedia as a source for research. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source. Stick with sources whose authority is verifiable and backed by reputable organizations.