www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Liturgy Language: Soaring Poetry vs. Bumpy Prose

Visit an Orthodox parish and you will see how the Divine Liturgy is celebrated without revisions and abbreviations.

LOL, Etnick, don't make me laugh so hard! We both know that's far from the case in most Orthodox parishes. And aren't the Greeks using the "wrong" typicon? But I do appreciate your humor.

What parishes? Theres no inclusive language in the OCA, or any other Orthodox church I've attended. The official Greek translation has "Who for us men" in the creed.

Felix, I invite you to a ROCOR parish to see how the liturgy SHOULD be celebrated.

Alexandr

Good luck with that Alex! Although the invitation was nice.

I am not going to comment on ROCOR parishes or about the state of the liturgy in Orthodox jurisdictions. Its not my church, although I have been to very many Orthodox services and almost half of my friends are Orthodox. But I don't think its appropriate for me to complain about the liturgy of a church not my own. I should have not said anything about the Orthodox Church to begin with.

Note - by "complain," I don't mean I have a negative opinion of the state of Orthodox services. What I mean is that I disagree with the statements of Alexander and Etnick and any elaboration as to my disagreement would be the equivalent of arguing about the liturgy of a church not my own.

That is totally false.

It is not �personal taste� to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the text and rubrics given in the official 1942 edition published at Rome. That is the problem with the reformers. They do not acknowledge that standards mean anything.

You are free to believe the reform is reasonable. Most disagree. And we have the right of appeal.

It is a real shame that you believe that those who exercise their legitimate right of petition to Rome for accurate translations and complete rubrics to be an "embarrassing fiasco".

It is more than personal taste: there is the question of the Ruthenian Recension and its status . Legitimate questions have been raised and asked. They deserve definitive, authoritative answers as to their details.



What are the merits of the RDL relative to the Recension and its 1965 translation? Other than obvious corrections, what was achieved by the RDL that was not available before?



What constitutes small? Is not translating a word -- anthropous, men -- in the Creed, simply dropping it, "small" and therefore ok?

As to writing to Rome: The Pope is commemorated in our liturgy and is a proper authority as has been pointed out by both sides of the issue. Approval from Rome was obtained for the RDL. Why should Rome not be informed of reactions, pro and con? Rome also has, or should have, a prior and significant interest because of it being the authority for the promulgation of the Ruthenian Recension.



The question is, to what?

"Personal taste"? Metropolitan Andrey worked tirelessly on the restoration of the service books, even being resisted by a couple of his own latinized bishops to complete the Ordo. While he did not live to see the completion of the entire set, he did live to see the greatest work completed.

The American Byzantine Catholic Metropolia is NOT the only particular Church to use the books of the Ruthenian Rescension, and is certainly not the largest particular Church using this rescension. Patriarch Lubomyr approved the article of the entire Ukrainian Greek Catholic Synod which made the Ordo obligatory. I would not call the entire Synod and His Beatitude's decision a matter of "personal taste".