www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The Audible Anaphora

Dear Father David,

And liberal people will propose change for change's sake, thinking they know better than the tradition, and that what served generations before, is inadequate for today. Radical liberals will try to change the whole Church to suit their own ideas and bizarre agendas.

I have been thinking about this point. It must be possible to unite liberals and conservatives, and radicals on all sides, into one Church? What has always united us as one Church in the past?

We could unite around our beautiful Ruthenian Recension, and the offical books of our Church. In them there was freedom, a priest could (and did) take the anaphora outloud. Some litanies could be abbreviated (and they were, but we presume the priest was praying the quietly at the altar).

But we could all unite around the books of the Church. We could pray together, sing together, and be united around the official books of our Church.

Now, the Ruthenian Recension has been thrown on the fire. The one thing that united us (our common service book) has been taken away. What will hold us together as a Church, where will we find our identity as a Church?

The bishops have been very reckless. In shifting the one thing that really defined us as a Church (the Ruthenian Recension), it seems they have liberated the demons that would separate us from one another, liberals and traditionalists, liberal wackos from conservative reationaries.

You want us all to 'understand the Liturgy'. I want the bishops to understand what they have done by revising it.

Nick

And for what it's worth, a friend whom I sponsored entering the Church from a Protestant denomination was equally very impressed by the "silence of mystery" as he put it in the offering of the Sacrifice and not being "preached to" at every step of the service as he and his wife were accustomed to in their former denomination.

I am opposed only to the absolute legislation, which indeed is a latinization - as both the audible and silent anaphora, factually speaking (without the need for "probably"), are part and parcel both in the "received tradition", like it or not.

Both usages (silent or audible) have very good pastoral and catechetical aspects, both have precedent, and both should be left to the pastor to decide according to economia. I equally like the silent offering of the Sacrifice by the priest, culminating with the loud proclamations of the Institution and the Epiclesis, as I do with everything audible.

I agree completely! The only legislation needed is that found in the service books of the Ruthenian Recension. No other mandates are required. The legislation and rubrics found there are perfectly adequate, and shouldn't be changed.

Where the rubrics of the service books, and the 'Ordo Celebrationis' and the 'Instruction' leave liberty, there should still be liberty.

The new books mandate opinions and theories, yet to be tested, yet to be proven.

Maybe it is too long since our bishops were pastors? Maybe it is too long since the professors in the seminary were pastors? Clearly, they have contempt for our pastors, and have no confidence in our pastor's ability to judge what is best, exercise 'economia' and celebrate for our good. They take away our pastor's liberty, because they do not trust him to judge for himself.

But I think my pastor knows us better, and knows better how to celebrate the Liturgy in our parish. I trust him more than I trust the seminary professors and bishops who have given us these terrible books.

No wonder my pastor is demoralized and depressed! No wonder we feel like our Church has been hijacked.

Until this nonsense is over, my tithe is going to a charity. I feel bad for my priest, because he is starting to worry about the parish finances since the collection is down. There are more empty pews, and fewer people giving envelopes. When the Archbishop sees that the Chancery's tax of the parish revenue is falling, do you think he will notice then?

I have a suggestion.

Since the Archbishop is worried about parishes without priests... Since he is asking priests to take on 2 and 3 parishes, maybe he should take just one of these parishes himself, in addition to his duties in the Chancery. Then he can try celebrating this new Liturgy every day in a parish! Then he can hear the complaints from the parishioners. Then he can wonder what to do about the falling collection. Then he can tell the people not to worry about the empty pews. Then he can explain to his own parishioners why these new books were so necessary.

Maybe then, after a few years as a pastor, he would begin to trust his priests more, and maybe then, he would be forced to listen to his people? Maybe then, he would throw these new books on the fire, and give us back our old Liturgy?

Just a suggestion...

Nick

I wonder if it is possible to agree on certain facts even if the consequences may be disputed. For instance:

1. No one is opposed to the audible Anaphora etc. The difference is between: The audible Anaphora is mandated as is the case in the RDL versus the audible Anaphora should be optional, even encouraged but not mandated, and if its time has come then it will become the norm.

[While the quotes that follow are addressed by Administrator to Fr. David specifically, I'm invoking them for the specific assertions that they make.]

2.

Does anyone dispute that the RDL is significantly different from the Recension liturgicon and Ordo?


3.

Does anyone dispute that this is the case?


4.

This elaborates on specifics of item 2 above. Is it not an accurate statement?



5.

Well, what do you (plural) say?



Does anyone dispute that the RDL moves us farther away from the Recension rite (text and rubrics) that "we hold in common with others" than using even an abridged version of the 1965 liturgicon?

Dn. Anthony

I thank Father David for his post.

For some reason Father David continues to argue as if I and others have been demanding a mandate for the Anaphora and other presbyteral prayers to be prayed quietly. I have never done so and I don�t remember anyone participating here that has made such a demand. I (and others) have argued only for the official Ruthenian recension, that it be normative for us, and not restricted in any way.

The discussion, rather, is about Father David�s asking for and obtaining a mandate for the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh to unilaterally modify the liturgy apart from the rest of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). I have argued that our Church embrace a respect for our own official liturgical tradition, a part of which is the liberty for the priest to pray the Anaphora prayers either quietly or aloud. Father David has argued that his personal opinions on Liturgy be given precedent over the official forms.

In his earlier post on 8/10/2007 6:44 PM Father David states:
My argument for liberty is based upon the rubrics of the official Ruthenian edition of the Chrysostom Liturgy (which contains no specific rubric that the Anaphora be prayed either aloud or quietly). Father David argues that he is not convinced that the official rubric of the Ruthenian recension should be allowed and insists that a mandate is needed to remove the liberty offered by the official Ruthenian recension. And then he says he respects the official Ruthenian recension?

Father David has yet to address why the liberty of the Ruthenian recension will not serve better than the mandating of his personal liturgical preferences. The liberty of the official Ruthenian recension provides fertile soil for the possible natural development of the praying of the Anaphora aloud in our Church. This liberty also allows us to keep our liturgical books unchanged (and, therefore, the same as other Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) of the Ruthenian recension (and, indeed, close to all of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox)). Why is the liberty of the Ruthenian recension so offensive to Father David that he is willing to violate the Liturgical Instruction which clearly directs us to keep our books common with not just other Ruthenians but with the Orthodox?

I am uncomfortable with Father David describing the Divine Liturgy as an element of evangelization. Perhaps he might reconsider his point? The Divine Liturgy does evangelize. But participation in the Divine Liturgy is not really about evangelization. It is about sanctification � becoming holy. The Divine Liturgy is not merely an element of accomplishing evangelization. It is the very center of our lives, the primary way we relate to God, with the Eucharist as the source of our life.

We know that the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, celebrated completely and correctly, enlivens the church by sanctifying the people. We do not have any evidence that the Revised Divine Liturgy better leads to the sanctification of the faithful. We do have evidence that the reforms mandated in Parma and Passaic � which have many elements of the RDL � have not lead to the revitalization and evangelization that Father David has claimed. Instead we see a clergy and people who overwhelmingly oppose the reforms and are spiritually frustrated with the mandates.

If Father David wishes to label me and those others who seek to renew our Church according to the official Ruthenian liturgical books as �conservative�, he is free to do so. [And I proudly admit that I consider the official Ruthenian Liturgy to be important and worth preserving and renewing in our parishes! It should be made normative in our parishes and it should be the standard we follow. The RDL departs from this standard and should be rejected.]

Father David might consider that people like me are not at all reluctant to change. I seek great change. I support making the official Ruthenian recension normative for our Church, and then taking a dozen or so years to gently raise the �as celebrated� in our parishes (not through mandates but through example, education and encouragement). It seems to me that accomplishing this will require great change indeed. What I do oppose is change that removes us from the Ruthenian recension, change for the sake of change, change that imitates the Latins (especially customs they admit having problems with or are now revisiting because they have been unsuccessful), and change that removes us from the liturgical unity we hold with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

In seeking and obtaining a mandate Father David has sat in judgment of previous generations. He has judged that the custom that began in �Jerusalem, from a very early time� is not of the Holy Spirit and must not be allowed. In refusing to allow the Spirit liberty to lead through the decisions of individual pastors across the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) Father David potentially limits the working of the Holy Spirit. I say �potentially� because if Father David�s ideas are not of the Holy Spirit then they will crumble and fall. If the Emperor Justinian�s mandate could not get the priests to pray the Anaphora aloud then the mandate that Father David has sought and won will also fail if it is not of the Spirit. This is why liberty best prepares the soil for the working of the Holy Spirit.

Father David takes issue with my short quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). Yet I have quoted it at much greater length on several occasions and he did not respond. �Parts of the Canon� were indeed prayed aloud. Does Father David have documentation detailing which portions were taken aloud and which were prayed quietly in Constantinople? It seems quite possible (and very reasonable) that the structure we Byzantines have today comes to us from the earliest times (i.e., that the aloud parts of the Anaphora were the introduction to the thrice-holy hymn, the Words of Institution, and etc.).

Father David suggests that the Anaphora was earlier taken aloud for catechetical purposes (though he does not document his source for this claim so that it may be seen in context). Yet Father Taft continues past what both Father David and I quoted by saying (p. 166): �The people were incapable � the person in Church by himself or herself said their prayers aloud.� Several theologians more learned than I have explained this as that it would not matter if the priest prayed aloud or quietly because the people themselves were probably praying aloud (which was part of their culture). St. John Chrysostom tells us that the Anaphora was prayed behind curtains, which suggests that the prayers of the Anaphora were something far more important then the education of the faithful (see Father Serge�s excellent book page 250 and that whole chapter). In the end we do not know the details of why certain parts of the Anaphora began to be prayed quietly in the Great Church at Constantinople. Until we know and understand these details it is premature to mandate anything that departs from our official books.

I will repeat what I wrote at the beginning of this post to underscore it:

Father David has yet to address why the liberty of the Ruthenian recension will not serve better than the mandating of his personal liturgical preferences. The liberty of the official Ruthenian recension provides fertile soil for the possible natural development of the praying of the Anaphora aloud in our Church. This liberty also allows us to keep our liturgical books unchanged (and, therefore, the same as other Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) of the Ruthenian recension (and, indeed, close to all of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox)). Why is the liberty of the Ruthenian recension so offensive to Father David that he is willing to violate the Liturgical Instruction which clearly directs us to keep our books common with not just other Ruthenians but with the Orthodox?

The debate on the audible anaphora has convinced me absolutely that the internet is not well suited to these types of discussion.

My position is consistently misunderstood. Over and over again.

To Deacon Anthony:

The positions you seek as not disputed are precisely the things that are disputed.

�No one is opposed to the audible anaphora.� John is - he says he wants liberty, but has also said that the audible anaphora is a failed Roman experiment, and that in doing it we would be �latinizing.� While I accept that he concedes the liberty to say the anaphora aloud, the issue is the importance of this element of the Liturgy, and that is the dispute.

I dispute that the Restored Divine Liturgy is significantly different from the Ruthenian Recension and Ordo (is this a �latinization�; �ordo� is the Latin word, the Greeks use �akoluthia.�) It is significantly different if you make the assumption at the beginning, as many do on the Forum, that any deviation whatsoever from the 1941 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (promulgated 09-01-41, three days after I was born, printed 1942) is major. Liturgically speaking the shortening of the Office of Antiphons in the Enarxis and the suppression of the Litany after the Great Entrance are minor, certainly less than the variations found in Liturgies before the standardization imposed by the invention of printing. This addresses questions 2, 4 and 5.

One of the problems of this discussion is the definition of the �Ruthenian Recension.� We do not pray the �Ruthenian Recension,� we pray the Divine Liturgy, one expression of which is the �Ruthenian Recension,� which I would describe as the Divine Liturgy as celebrated by the Byzantine Ruthenian Churches in union with Rome - i.e., the Ukrainians (some areas of which use the �Vulgate recension� ; the Carpatho-Rusyns (and those who call themselves Slovak, if you will), the Hungarians and the Croatians. Historically, the �Ruthenian Recension� was very �latinized,� which was repaired by the recension created by the Liturgy Commission authorized by the Sacred Oriental Congregation, led by Fr. Cyril Korolevsky, and which resulted in a series of books published between 1942-1973. These books needed to be promulgated by the Ruthenian Hierarchy. The original books, of course, are in Church Slavonic, and any promulgation, either complete or partial, has been of vernacular translations of the originals. Notable are the English translation of Bishop Nicholas of Pittsburgh in 1964, which is a literal translation of the 1941 recension, though Bishop Nicholas made it clear that the rubrics of the 1964 book were not to be followed. I have written evidence of this. Also notable are the promulgations of Bishop Emil of Parma in 1970, in a pastoral form, not approved by Rome, but praised by some members of the Forum because the pastoral modifications don�t �seem� mandated; then in 1987 in Parma and 1996 in Passaic by Bishop Andrew, more complete than Bishop Emil, but not praised by the Forum because the pastoral form seems mandated, and finally by the Council of Hierarchs in 2007, with the approval of Rome, the same dicastery which approved the 1941 Church Slavonic work, thereby declaring that it is in substantive agreement with the �Ruthenian Recension� and the �Liturgical Instruction� of 1996. I hold that this edition is closer to a fundamentalist (literal) correspondence to the 1941 work than what is found in most parishes, and that the differences from 1964 are purely pastoral, and minor, liturgically speaking. John insists likewise that the rubrics are vastly different, but this also is not true, there are a couple of modifications in incensation, to emphasize the incensation of the Gospel before the gospel, and the incensation of the Holy Table and the gifts before the Great Entrance, as is evident from liturgical principles. All other rubrics were not translated �literally,� but in clearer language, and do not contradict what is the practice deriving from the rather jejune rubrics of the 1942 Liturgicon. Does this represent a lessening of �liberty?� I hardly think so, since there is actually no dispute on what is actually to be done, and if a priest adopts a practice that may be �literally� in conformity with the 1942 rubrics, but not general practice, he will be identified clearly as celebrating �incorrectly.� This is precisely the difficulty of the �audible anaphora.� The rubrics say only that the �priest prays,� without clearly specifying �audibly.� There is a reason for that - in antiquity no one read quietly, as Taft points out, therefore, there was no need for a rubric. The Greek Church, always more free with their rubrics, added �silently� in the official text, a step the Slavs never took. However, some would hold that since it became general practice that the anaphora was said �silently� ( = vocalized, but not loud enough for the congregation to hear), that it would be �incorrect� to say the prayers aloud. Taft is abundantly clear (Through Their own Eyes, p. 166) that the presbyteral prayers should now be said aloud, despite efforts to minimize his statements.

To John: the sentence you quote from Taft has been misunderstood - the people did not pray the presbyteral prayers aloud - they said �their prayers� aloud. Just as today, if out of piety, you would say in your heart, �O God, be merciful to me, a sinner,� in antiquity, that would have been said aloud, because the very concept of inaudible prayer simply did not exist.
Likewise, you cannot say that the 1942 recension prescribes �liberty.� It doesn�t prescribe anything, which is a quite different matter, simply because in antiquity, the question did not come up. Now the question has come up. The Greeks, who actually inserted the rubric �silent,� now recommend (2004) the audible recitation of the Anaphora. Of course, this is minimalized because it is not mandated. Since you cannot (according to the �literalist� reading) mandate, therefore, the public recitation becomes, in effect, a moot point.

To John on this point:
John says: �Father David�s asking for and obtaining a mandate for the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh to unilaterally modify the liturgy ... � �I� asked for nothing - nothing! Is that clear - the Liturgy Commission asked for the audible recitation of the Anaphora, and the Council of Hierarchs accepted that and they chose to mandate it, as is their episcopal prerogative, because they consider it important enough. The ministry of bishops is precisely to oversee the celebration of the Liturgy - is that clear??? This was accepted by Rome, as a legitimate extension of the principle found in the Liturgical Instruction, paragraph 54. Note: the paragraph �only� recommends, but the extension to �mandate� is clearly an extension of this �study.� This Forum has somehow come up with the really tendentious opinion that the Liturgy is the way it is simply because �I like it.� This is pure dribble and �venting.� I am one priest of the Eparchy of Parma, it is absolutely and completely impossible that I could impose my �likes� on the whole Church. I only suggest, not based on �what I like,� or �what I dislike,� but on solid liturgical principles. The Church either accepts or rejects what I recommend, and the Council of Hierarchs has accepted and Rome has approved some of the things that I suggested, nothing more. The reason I do not answer questions of �mandate� is because I cannot �mandate� anything, and I think the wrong question is being asked.

I suspect, also, that what some people in this Forum mean by the �Ruthenian Recension� is what was done in their parish before the 2007 (or the 1986, 1996 preliminary liturgicons) translation.
The number of parishes celebrating the 1964 �red book� are few in number, much less representative of the people who post here, many of whom do not even attend a Ruthenian parish, and so I suspect that their definition of �Ruthenian recension� may not be what is under discussion.

As to number (3) of Deacon Anthony�s questions - how can I answer that question? That is between the parishes and their bishops, who are the overseers of the liturgy. I have received no reliable information whatsoever - whatsoever - as to whether these congregations asked the bishop for an exemption and were denied or allowed.

To John:
I answered above �my asking for� a mandate. The Byzantine Liturgy was a bit more free in its rubrics than the older �Tridentine� Roman Mass, but that �liberty� was a principle? - LOL. There are no rubrics as to �audible� and �silent,� because the question had not yet been asked. Now it has been asked.

�Evangelization� or �sanctification?� Why are these two opposed? How can they possibly be opposed? A sanctified person will also be an evangelized person and vice versa. Jesus: �Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel (= become an evangelized person) will save it. (Mark 8:35)� A little bit too much �hair-splitting� here, I believe.

�His personal liturgical preferences� - answered clearly above.

�In speaking and obtaining a mandate Father David has sat in judgment of previous generations.� My opinion had nothing - nothing! - to do with the mandate, this is a mixing of two different questions. The question here is: have previous generations been wrong in saying the anaphora �inaudibly.� I would tend to say that this has been, in fact, a liturgical �devolution,� but it is clearly not my role as a Christian to �judge� (Jesus: �judge not lest you be judged�) previous generations. We have not experienced their whole situation, and, at any rate, the liturgy not being in the vernacular would have made the whole question a rather moot point, in my opinion. The number of ways in which this rather clear principle has been twisted and misinterpreted is appalling to me.

John: �Does Father David have documentation detailing which portions were taken aloud and which were prayed quietly in Constantinople?� John here is mixing up Constantinople and Syria. We know clearly that the whole anaphora was prayed aloud in Constantinople in antiquity (cf. Taft, Through their own Eyes, p. 166). In ancient times �parts� of the Syrian anaphora were said silently. We do not have actual texts from antiquity - maybe late antiquity. Check any Syrian anaphora today, there are portions to be said aloud (i.e. while bowing, cf. Taft, Through Their Own Eyes,� - a custom (bowing) that may have traveled to Constantinople, though we don�t know for sure). These were called �g�hantha.�, and other parts, for the private recitation of the priest, as for example,�Hear me, O Lord: hear me, O Lord: hear me, O Lord, and have mercy upon us, and may thy holy and living Spirit, O Lord, come and descend upon me and upon this oblation,� the people were singing �kurillison,� a Syriac rendering of �kyrie eleison,� (Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 88)

John: �It seems quite possible [if I said this, everything that follows would be discounted] (and very reasonable) that the structure we Byzantines have today [John does not mean the Restored Divine Liturgy, but the traditional practices - for which he says there is �liberty,�] comes to us from the earliest [what does he mean by �earliest�?] times.� I would say no - absolutely not, cf. Taft, Through Their Own Eyes, p. 166].For more detail on this, see Taft�s article, �Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Secretly or Aloud? The Ancient Tradition and What Became of It,� in �Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East,� (St. Vladimir�s Seminary Press, 2006)

John: �Father David suggests that the Anaphora was earlier taken aloud for catechetical purposes,� no, I don�t. I say the exact opposite, that in antiquity, when the anaphora was said aloud, the catechumens - those being �taught�- had been dismissed from the church, because they were not permitted to hear the anaphora, which was therefore excluded from catechesis.

�Curtains.� Clearly this is a red herring. Since the presence or absence of a curtain does not, even today, prevent a priest from saying something aloud. The deposition of the altar was not the same in Chrysostom�s time, and his evidence is from both Syria and Constantinople, as icon screens did not develop until the end of the first millennium.

I apologize for going on and on, but I think the question of the anaphora is the most important question for our liturgical life today.

I find it very hard to believe any argument that the Holy Spirit has been failing to guide us all those years before and after Justinian's attempted and failed mandate. That He would abandon us all these years when the priests were offering the Sacrifice in a different manner than the RDL now directs without option.

"Solid liturgial principles" include the objective recognition of historical reality of usages. The silent anaphora cannot be attributed to a "latinization", as can neither the audible anaphora. It cannot be attributed to attempted unilateral directives to insert or not insert - actually much less than the audible anaphora i.e. Justinian's attempts. It is simply the acquired usage over many, many centuries.

It seems a bit presumptious to say one has the "plan" from the Holy Spirit on where He is guiding us when the received tradition speaks for itself with both uses obviously in the historical corpus. Orthodox churches using the silent Anaphora are not all in decline, that is certainly a fact as well.

Regarding the question of liberty, I would suggest anyone who questions call one or more of the bishops directly, and ask if anything other than the "sole text" of the RDL can be taken, and why or why not. Let them speak, lead, and teach.

I want to respond to a number of Fr. David's points but for now and for clarification:


By Ordo in this context I assumed would be understood the Ordo Celebrationis Vesperarum Matutini et Divinae Liturgiae Iuxta Recensionem Ruthenorum and its translation into English, the first of which that I'm aware being Ordo-English-1955 [patronagechurch.com].



I'm aware of Card. Tisserant's letter [patronagechurch.com] dated September 10, 1941; what is the significance of 09-01-41?



I hope I have understood and used the term in accordance with its use by Card. Tisserant in his letter referenced above, specifically as he says:




I think this is something that is agreed upon by all concerned.



I would like to know more about the "written evidence."


Dn. Anthony

Well, we can all finally agree to that statement! At this point, what are the faithful who study Liturgics, and who try to understand the theology behind the changes to do? We've been stonewalled by our priests (in my case), our bishops and archbishop. Has anyone received a response to their letters? No. Remember NO ONE asked the Liturgical Commission to trash our beloved full Ruthenian Recension, in favor of a neutralized version, one that barely resembles what is rightfully ours.

If you would have given to the people what has been handed down, your position wouldn't be misunderstood.




Here we go again, assuming that the people in the pew are dumb and unenlightened on what is rightfully ours. I think we are all smart enough to understand what the Ruthenian Recension is, Fr. David. Almost everyone here knows that the Red Book is the full Liturgy. And I suspect, many on the forum have experienced it -- unfortunately not in their own Ruthenian Parish but perhaps in an Orthodox Parish. I have experienced it for many years in my Ruthenian Parish. Now it is gone and I am at a loss as to what to do, as I am told there will be no "supplement" for the parishes in the Parma Eparchy.

Be courageous Bishops, and hand down the full Ruthenian Recension as it was approved by Rome in 1964. That's all we've ever needed.

"Be courageous Bishops, and hand down the full Ruthenian Recension as it was approved by Rome in 1964. That's all we've ever needed."

Don't hold your breath Stephanie...I think the BCC is stuck with the RDL. I'll light a candle for you this Sunday. I usually light them at the third verse of the antiphons.

Not for the first time, Father David takes exception to the assumption that he is personally responsible for all or most - or even any - of the elements of the Revised Liturgy that some of the posters are objecting to. In response, perhaps I may offer two points:

a) my book does not either accuse or credit Father David in this matter - the book discusses the innovations themselves, not the question of who may have proposed or insisted upon what.

b) nevertheless, one of the numerous objectionable characteristic of bureaucracies (religious, academic, governmental, or what-have-you) is the habt of the bureaucrats to dodge responsibility by hiding behind each other and saying something like "all I can do is tell you the decision of the committee".

For better or for worse, Father David seems to be the only spokesman of those defending the Revised Divine Liturgy who had some sort of share in producing it. This does not make him personally responsible for anything one cares to object to, but it does explain why he often finds himself in that unpleasant position.

Father David writes that the Internet is not a suitable place to discuss the whole complex of problems. Having entered the lists myself by writing a book, I can agree with him to some extent, while nevertheless accepting that the Internet does at least provide the possibility of obtaining feed-back from those who feel themselves affected by these matters.

If Father David wishes to propose a conference, for example, at which there would be a genuinely free and open discussion of the problem(s), that proposal would be likely to meet with considerable support. But so far, the Forum seems to be almost the only place where any free discussion is tolerated.

Fr. Serge

One wonders if the Hierarchs accepted and Rome approved everything that Fr David suggested. Are there reforms that he suggested that were turned down? Are there reforms that were accepted and approved that Fr David did not recommend? The secrecy continues.

I keep hearing the words, "the bishops decided/mandated/approved/promulgated such and such." This is entirely true as only the bishops can actually promulgate any liturgical changes, once they are approved by Rome, according to our law. But the bishops did not come up with these changes or additions or deletions. They relied on the Committee to do the work, trusting that they are the experts, and then, once Rome approved, released them in January.

Working in a large corporate environment for many years, I've heard this kind of "pass the buck" decision making all the time. "Well, thus and so mandated that we cut expenses, so..." "We've hired an outside firm to look at the way we..." "Mr. So and So pulled me in to re-write the procedures for doing blank..." "I was only following corporate directives from the top, this was not my idea..."

Unfortunately, I fear, the church works in much the same way. This all may be a bit harsh, bit it's human nature not to take responsibility, especially when it upsets many and tips the balance of the way things have been done. I do applaud Father Petras for explaining some things and standing behind the work of the committee.

There is some good in the Revised Divine Liturgy, it WILL make some parishes be more Eastern, IF the rubrics and texts are followed to the letter. I applaud that. There is some bad as well. It moves us farther away from other Greek Catholics who use the DL of St. John Chrysostom, and more importantly, from the Orthodox, about whom we have been instructed, that we should consider their liturgical practice and deviate from as little as possible. We're becoming "A Third Way," to use a well known term.

I don't think that anything that happened on June 29th is going to be rescinded. That's a pipe dream. And the longer that the new Liturgy is used and lived with, it will become "our tradition," who we are, and where we've come from. That makes the future promulgation of the 1941 translation and rubrics even more remote. We can live with it, make the best of the RDL and go on, or we can move on as some have done, to other churches.

This are just some thoughts as this discussion continues. After almost two months for some parishes, or long for others, things have begun to settle down, maybe they should here as well.

John K

Things haven't settled down in many parishes. It will be interesting to see how the RDL will affect the already dwindling attendance at the annunal Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage (Otpust').
Many parishes are still having difficulty with the promulgation.
It's sad to hear they are trying to cope with a bad situation. Sad indeed.

Ungcsertesz

I believe that you are correct, John. My initial anger has dissipated as I settle into my new OCA parish. (I love it!) However, there are echos of sadness. I always pray for the BCC.

R