|
0 members (),
1,082
guests, and
72
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
The following became buried in the "comparison" thread, which I am sure is the reason questions have not been answered. I thought it might be helpful to shift this question into it's own thread. the RDL ("Restored Divine Liturgy") Father David, Restored???  I am not an expert on liturgical history, but it is a subject which interests me greatly. The newly-published Divine Liturgy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia is not a 'restoration' of the Recensio rutena, which has never, in practice, been the official standard in the Metropolia. It is not a 'restoration' of the L'viv Sluzhebnik of 1905 - thankfully! I haven't had a chance to compare it to any 18th or 19th century books. Is it a Liturgy of these centuries which has been restored? It definitely isn't a restoration of the Divine Liturgy of the period immediately pre/post Unia. Is it a restoration of an even earlier form of the Divine Liturgy? Or is the Pittsburgh Divine Liturgy a 'restoration' in the same fashion that the Novus Ordo is seen by some as a 'restoration' of a purer form of the Mass? Enquiring minds want to know! Also, the Administrator of the Forum commented:"RDL" = "Revised Divine Liturgy"
The title of this forum was based upon common usage of the term by the bishops and clergy of the Metropolia, including those who are members of the committee. The other common terms in use are the "Petras Liturgy" and the "Petras-Pataki Liturgy".
In the promulgation letter of January 6, in the forwards to the two liturgicons and in the forward to the new pew book, Metropolitan Basil uses the word "revision" twice and "revised" once (a total of three references in four paragraphs). The Council of Hierarchs did not make any pretense that this was a restoration. They clearly and honestly described it as a "revision". I would hope that those who support the revision will stop pretending that this RDL is somehow more faithful to the official Ruthenian recension then is the 1964/1965 edition (the "Red Book"). Such a claim is clearly and demonstrably not true. It is not a restoration but a revision. Father Dave, we patiently await your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487 |
KO63AP, I'm am curious as well as to what is being restored. But this isn't the first time Father David has made such a claim: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...d&topic=0&Search=true#Post226221I have stopped monitoring the Byzantine Forum because of the hostile attitude there. I am grateful to PrJ and others for a more balanced view of the liturgical restoration we are engaged in. I'm still looking for an official Liturgikon (Greek Catholic or Orthodox) which for example prohibits more than one verse of Antiphons and could possibly be what he claims the RDL is restoring?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Monomahk,
The one thing that really can't blamed on the new book is the abbreviating of the antiphons because the old book placed these in brackets and from the Preface of the 1965 Liturgikon:
"The use of brackets follows that of the typical edition of Rome, and what is enclosed may be used or omitted according to the Ordinary of the place."
So the abbreviation of the Antiphons was always at the discretion of the Ordinary even in the old book.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1 |
Monomahk,
The one thing that really can't blamed on the new book is the abbreviating of the antiphons because the old book placed these in brackets and from the Preface of the 1965 Liturgikon:
"The use of brackets follows that of the typical edition of Rome, and what is enclosed may be used or omitted according to the Ordinary of the place."
So the abbreviation of the Antiphons was always at the discretion of the Ordinary even in the old book.
Fr. Deacon Lance Can anyone explain why my current parish takes all three antiphons, nothing is in brackets in the book, and not one parishioner is complaining? The liturgy is only 90 minutes total! Wow! I've been known to spend more time at the bar!  I'd rather spend more time at church, but it isn't open seven days a week. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209 |
Fr.Dcn. Lance said:
"The one thing that really can't blamed on the new book is the abbreviating of the antiphons because the old book placed these in brackets."
Even if the 1965 Liturgikon did not require the full antiphons, at least they were printed in the text. But now in our "restored" Liturgikon they missing. Even if using other verses might not be forbidden, the practical result of omitting them from the text is "out of sight, out of mind" -- out of practice.
In the older Liturgikon a priest could see what a full liturgy was supposed to be, even if it was not fully practiced. However some priests were challenged to implement a fuller liturgy when they noticed the part usually omitted.
Even if teplota (hot water) was not usually used among our priest, nor the distribution of antidoron (bread left over from the preparation - Proskomedia - of the gifts), some priests did follow these practices and could refer the the Liturgikon they held in their hand.
So, even if the full Liturgy was not always practiced, it was still printed out in black and white (and red/rubrics) in the 1965 Liturgikon.
Now, whatever the liturgical commission and bishops wanted to eliminate, they also eliminated from the new Liturgikon. This will not foster a fuller liturgy. Parishes that were very latinized or minimalists might be challenged to celebrate a fuller (relatively speaking) Liturgy. But parishes that were following a fuller Liturgy as provided for us in the Ruthenian Recension & 1965 Liturgikon will be forced to minimize the tradition.
We have become Byzantine "lite", Orthodox "extra-lite"!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Monomahk,
The one thing that really can't blamed on the new book is the abbreviating of the antiphons because the old book placed these in brackets and from the Preface of the 1965 Liturgikon:
"The use of brackets follows that of the typical edition of Rome, and what is enclosed may be used or omitted according to the Ordinary of the place."
So the abbreviation of the Antiphons was always at the discretion of the Ordinary even in the old book.
Fr. Deacon Lance Dear Fr. Dcn. Lance, Something about your quote from the Preface of the 1965 "Liturgikon" struck me as odd, so I did some digging. The Recensio rutena "Liturgikon" (Служεбникъ) does not contain the texts of any Antiphons ( pp. 200-201 [ patronagechurch.com]). As this is the service book for priests and deacons, there is really no reason for them to be included. The Recensio rutena "Horologion" (Часословъ) does not contain any of the Divine Liturgies ( see TOC [ patronagechurch.com]). The Recensio rutena "Apostolos" (specifically: Чтεнїя апостольскїя на нєдѣли, праздники и различныя протєбы) contains the text of the Divine Liturgy. It includes: � Typcial Psalms (in their entirity!) and the Beatitudes; � The Resurrectional Antiphons (in their entirity) with no verses bracketed; � The 'Weekday' Antiphons (in their entirity) with no verses bracketed. I also see no mention of Antiphons in Bishop Daniel's letter of 31 Otober 1953 to Eug�ne Cardinal Tisserant where he requests a multitude of exceptions from the Ordo celebrationis. So, the question arises... Just where did the idea of bracketing off antiphon verses come from? Obviously not from Rome and the Recensio Rutena.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
I really would like to know where the justification of one verse antiphons is from.
Monomakh Know any mind readers? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 407 |
I gave up asking that question a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
One would have to start with whoever prepared the people's books in 1964/65 that omitted the additional verses entirely - and prepared a priest's book with the verses bracketed as optional.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Perhaps Fr. David Petras can shed some light on the subject. I'm sure he must have come across such information while preparing his paper A Survey of the Liturgical Translations of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia which was presented at the International Symposium on English Translations of Byzantine Liturgical Texts, held in Stamford, Connecticut, 17-20 June 1998.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
As Fr. David is, on occasion, slow to reply (I'm sure he's busy, especially with the RDL being officially implemented tomorrow), I will quote from his article mentioned above (my emphasis): Moreover, only the first verse of the First and Second Antiphons was included. As time went on, this truncation became more and more unacceptable, and the restoration of the complete liturgical text was desired. In 1978, Msgr William Levkulic published a more complete version of the green book...* In summary we have: � The Recensio rutena "Liturgikon" which gives full antiphons and typical psalms � The 1965 translation which brackets/truncates the antiphons, basing this on the Recensio rutena - an outright fallacy. � The 1978 book restores the antiphons because the truncations had become "more and more unacceptable". � The 2007 books, ignoring both the Recensio rutena and the 1978 book, truncates the antiphons yet again. Ergo, a restoration! * "A Survey of the Liturgical Translations of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia", Logos [web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca]: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 39 (1998) Nos. 2-4, pg. 250. ����� Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Fr. David,
It's great to see you back on the Forum this afternoon.
We'd be most grateful if you could take a few moments to address the questions posed here and on a few other threads.
_____
Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
Prof. Thomson is also listed as being on line this afternoon. Sir, would you please take a few moments to answer some of the questions posted on this thread and others? I ask in humility and seriousness. I am not trying to ambush anyone or attack anyone. As I have stated on this forum, I am withholding my opinion on the RDL until I have heard it. The only time I have is the broadcast from Parma a few weeks ago. I am trying to keep an open mind on the matter.
But I would like to ask one specific question that has nothing to do with the translation or changes in music. This is for either Prof. Thompson or Father Petras. Why is there no Church Slavonic included in the new books? I have looked through one of them and that struck me immediately. I am 47 years old, a cradle Byzantine Ruthenian, married with one child. My wife and I both work for a Big Ten University in the U-S. We're both educated, decently well off and both have strong religious feelings. My wife was raised United Church of Christ but finds the DL beautiful. And she also likes the Slavonic versions. Why was Church Slavonic not included?
Repsectfully,
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
